CC 2021-01-26_09a Resolution Adopting the 2020 Housing Element Update
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER/ ACTING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: ANDREW PEREZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
UPDATE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND ADDENDUM TO
THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT;
LOCATION - CITYWIDE
DATE: JANUARY 26, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Adoption of the 2020 Housing Element Update (HEU), supported by an addendum to the
General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), will allow for submittal to the State for
review and final certification and ensure compliance with State Housing Laws requiring
updates to the City’s adopted Housing Element.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
Adoption of the HEU will not impact financial and personnel resources. Funding for
preparation of the HEU by the City’s consultant, PlaceWorks, is provided through grant
funding from the State under SB 2. Staff resources will be required to implement programs
identified in the HEU while some programs may be completed by consultants funded
through grants.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting the 2020 Housing
Element Update, and consider, rely upon and adopt an addendum to the General Plan
EIR in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
BACKGROUND:
The City’s Housing Element is one of eight (8) mandatory elements of the Arroyo Grande
General Plan and is a critical component of the City’s blueprint to providing affordable
housing opportunities in the community. State law mandates that a Housing Element
identify and analyze projected housing needs, identified goals, policies, programs, and
quantitative objectives to further the development of housing within the City. Updates to
the Housing Element occur on regular schedules, typically referred to as cycles. The
current Housing Element was adopted in March 2016, and covers the period between
Item 9.a. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION - CITYWIDE
JANUARY 26, 2021
PAGE 2
June 30, 2014 – June 30, 2019 (the fifth cycle). The next cycle will cover the period of
December 30, 2020, through December 31, 2028 (the sixth cycle).
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Allocation
Updating the Housing Element allows the City the opportunity to identify housing goals
and policies to address the future housing needs within the City. The update reviews the
progress of programs from the current Housing Element, assesses housing constraints,
and identifies strategies to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
The RHNA represents the number of housing units the City needs to plan for over the
next eight (8) years, broken down into four (4) income categories.
HCD determines the housing need for the region using population growth projections.
The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) then develops a methodology
to distribute the regional need among each of the seven cities and the unincorporated
portions of San Luis Obispo County. Based on the RHNA process for this housing element
cycle, Arroyo Grande is required to plan for 692 of the 10,810 units assigned to San Luis
Obispo County as a whole. The 692 units are broken down by income level, as shown in
Table 1 below.
Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation by Income Level
Income Category Number of Units
Very Low Income 170
Low Income 107
Moderate Income 124
Above Moderate Income 291
Total 692
State law does not require construction of the 692 units, but requires the Housing Element
to show that the City can accommodate those units through available land and zoning
designation.
Preparation of the Draft Housing Element Update
On November 12, 2019, City Council approved a Consultant Services Agreement with
PlaceWorks to update the Housing Element. The process of updating the Housing
Element began with a vacant sites analysis and review of the previous Housing Element’s
programs. The draft HEU reduced the overall number of programs when compared to the
current element. Programs from the current element that remained relevant have been
carried over into the update, while programs that were redundant were combined with
similar programs. Programs that either accomplished the quantified objective or were
inconsistent with State housing laws were deleted. In addition, the draft HEU identified
sites within the City that could accommodate the number of units needed to meet the
RHNA assigned to the City. Preparation work on the draft HEU also included development
Item 9.a. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION - CITYWIDE
JANUARY 26, 2021
PAGE 3
of a regional chapter. Representatives of the County, each of the seven cities, and
SLOCOG developed this regional chapter to be integrated into each jurisdiction’s Housing
Element and is aimed at highlighting the ongoing commitment of each agency to the
collaborative effort being undertaken to address critical housing and related infrastructure
needs throughout the County.
Planning Commission Study Session
On October 6, 2020, a study session was held before the Planning Commission regarding
the draft Housing Element Update. The Commission reviewed and commented on the
draft HEU and received comments from the public (see Attachment 4 for meeting
minutes). The Commission was generally supportive of the draft HEU and wanted to see
policies and programs that increase density and encourage affordable housing production
while preserving the current character and quality of life. The Commission provided the
following comments:
Consider policies to encourage “missing middle” types, such as duplexes and
triplexes.
Create a policy to encourage the incorporation of childcare and/or
intergenerational care facilities in multi-family residential projects
Consider a program to create objective design standards to streamline housing
production
The current draft HEU proposed for adoption includes policies and programs to address
each of these concerns, as described in detail later in this report.
Many of the same concerns regarding missing middle housing types and childcare
facilities were echoed during the public comment period. Speakers from the public also
expressed concern with the reliance on accessory dwelling unit (ADU) development to
meet the City’s RHNA.
Revisions to the Draft HEU
The City’s Housing Element consultant and staff revised the HEU based on comments
received during the study session. The revised HEU was submitted to HCD on October
12, 2020, for the mandatory 60-day review period and conditional certification. HCD staff
requested revisions to the draft HEU that would be required prior to HCD’s certification.
Those revisions were:
1. Revise Program A.10-2 to include the Fair Oaks Mixed-Use and Gateway Mixed-
Use zoning districts to reduce constraints on affordable housing production
2. Revise Program F.1-2 to address permit requirements for multi-family residential
projects
3. Add a program to revise design review findings to be more objective and
predictable
4. Add a program to establish an official process to implement SB 1087
Item 9.a. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION - CITYWIDE
JANUARY 26, 2021
PAGE 4
5. Minor edits and points of clarification
Staff incorporated these revisions into a final draft HEU and resubmitted this version to
HCD. This final draft is included herein as Attachment 2 and as Exhibit A to the draft
resolution. HCD then issued a letter of conditional certification on December 10, 2020
(Attachment 5), confirming that HCD will certify the City’s HEU if it is adopted as shown
in Attachment 2. (Note: since receipt of HCD’s conditional certification, two additional
minor revisions were made to Attachment 2 following the Planning Commission’s January
5, 2021 hearing on the HEU, as described in more detail below.)
The paragraphs below describe the major changes since the Planning Commission
reviewed the HEU at the study session.
1. The concern around the absence of policies and programs to address missing
middle housing was resolved through the addition of Policy A.15. This policy
encourages the development of missing middle housing types through
examination and potential changes to the Development Code and design
standards. Additionally, Program F.1-4 calls for the adoption of objective design
standards to streamline approvals and reduce costs for housing projects of all
types.
2. To reduce governmental constraints, HCD requested an expansion of Program
A.10-2 to include other mixed-use zoning districts. The original draft program
would have required revisions to the Development Code to allow up to 20 dwelling
units per acre for 100% residential projects proposed in the Office Mixed-Use zone.
This program was revised to include the FOMU and GMU zones and to allow up
to 25 dwelling units per acre for 100% residential projects in these zones. As
originally proposed in the draft HEU, this program also lowers the permit
requirements for multi-family residential projects from a conditional use permit
(CUP) to a minor use permit (MUP) with design review from the Architectural
Review Committee. These changes makes more land available for higher density
projects as a strategy to provide affordable housing units.
3. HCD identified the City’s existing design review findings as a governmental
constraint to the production of housing due to their subjectivity. In response to this
concern, Program F.1-4 was revised to clarify that objective design standards
would replace the existing, subjective design review findings, thereby eliminating
the identified constraint. Program F.1-4 was also revised to address comments
from the Planning Commission regarding the desire to see accelerated review
times for residential projects. Objective design standards may stimulate housing
production by reducing costs through shorter review periods and increased
predictability throughout the process. By lowering risk and reducing costs that can
Item 9.a. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION - CITYWIDE
JANUARY 26, 2021
PAGE 5
be achieved through a streamlined permit process, more housing can be produced
at a lower cost.
4. Both the Planning Commission and members of the public requested the addition
of a policy that encourages the inclusion of childcare facilities in planned residential
projects. Two policies were added in response to those comments. Policy 1.7
encourages the inclusion of childcare facilities for both residential projects and
larger commercial and industrial projects. This policy places an emphasis on
incorporating childcare facilities in projects with 50 or more units. In addition, Policy
I.8 was added to encourage projects and facilities that promote intergenerational
uses and activities.
5. Both the Planning Commission and the public expressed concern regarding the
reliance on ADUs to meet the City’s RHNA. The draft HEU was revised to reduce
the number of ADUs projected during the planning cycle from 350 to 236. This
reduction reflects a realistic and attainable number of ADUs that are anticipated
over the next eight (8) years based on the number of ADUs permitted the past two
years and extrapolated through 2028. Staff then conducted additional analysis to
identify additional sites that were added to the land inventory table that were
previously unaccounted for. These additional opportunity sites are non-vacant
sites and their redevelopment is not likely to result in high density or affordable
housing units. Therefore, the number of units that these opportunity sites could
produce were added to the above moderate income category. The final revised
table identifying the number of units relied upon to meet the City’s RHNA
obligations is shown below:
Item 9.a. - Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION - CITYWIDE
JANUARY 26, 2021
PAGE 6
Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation
On January 5, 2021, staff presented a final draft of the HEU to the Planning Commission
at a noticed public hearing, requesting a recommendation that the City Council adopt the
HEU. The final draft presented to the Planning Commission included responses to
comments from the public and Planning Commission at the study session, as well as
corrections and clarifications requested by HCD to obtain conditional certification. Public
comment received on the day before, and day of, the Planning Commission hearing
generated two minor changes to the HEU. The public comment correctly identified an
inconsistency between the number of ADUs stated in the quantified objective for Program
A.2-1, Table 2-1, and Table 4-5. The projected numbers in the quantified objective and
Table 2-1 had not updated when the ADU projection was reduced from 350 to 236.
A public comment also questioned whether the public was adequately involved in the
HEU process. In response to this concern, Section 1.4, “Public Participation”, was
updated to include the efforts made to solicit input from ten local Native American tribes,
eleven local non-profit organizations, and awareness of the HEU garnered through the
City’s participation with the Regional Housing Action Team and in the Regional Housing
Summit. The italicized and underlined text on the pages included as Attachment 6 depict
the changes that were made to HEU in response to these comments. These changes
have been incorporated into the final HEU included in the draft Resolution.
Following consideration of public comment, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to
recommend approval of the draft as submitted by staff, with the minor changes
summarized above, at their meeting on January 5, 2021. Draft minutes of the Planning
Commission hearing are included as Attachment 7.
Upon adoption by the City Council, the HEU will be submitted to HCD for a final review
and certification. HCD has an additional 90 days to review the element and report its
findings back to the City. At the conclusion of the 90-day period, if there are no additional
comments, HCD will issue a certification letter and the Housing Element will be
considered in full compliance with State law.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The HEU requires environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act. The HEU is a document that establishes goals and policies, but does not result in a
physical change to the environment. All development will be required to comply with the
City’s existing General Plan, which was fully evaluated in a comprehensive Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). It is not anticipated that the HEU will create any new or significantly
increased impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR, as demonstrated in
the EIR addendum. The 2001 General Plan EIR is included as Attachment 8, and the
addendum can be found as Attachment 3 and as Exhibit B to the draft Resolution.
Item 9.a. - Page 6
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION - CITYWIDE
JANUARY 26, 2021
PAGE 7
ADVANTAGES:
Adoption of the Housing Element will bring the City into compliance with State housing
law. It will also make the City eligible for several housing, community development, and
infrastructure funding programs that include housing element compliance as a rating and
ranking or threshold requirement.
DISADVANTAGES:
None identified.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT:
A notice of public hearing was published in the Tribune and notices mailed to partner
agencies on January 15, 2021. The notice was also posted on the City’s website and at
City Hall. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance
with Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Housing Element Final Draft (Exhibit A to the Resolution)
3. Addendum to the EIR (Exhibit B to the Resolution)
4. Minutes from October 6, 2020 Planning Commission meeting
5. HCD Letter dated December 10, 2020
6. Redlined pages of the draft HEU as directed by the Planning Commission on
January 5, 2021
7. Draft Minutes from the January 5, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
8. 2001 General Plan EIR
Item 9.a. - Page 7
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 19-002, ADOPTING THE HOUSING
ELEMENT UPDATE, AND APPROVING AN ADDENDUM
TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
WHEREAS, Section 65302 of the California Government Code requires every city and
county in California to adopt a Housing Element as part of its General Plan; and
WHEREAS, State law further requires that the City of Arroyo Grande’s (“City”) Housing
Element be updated at regular intervals to demonstrate that the jurisdiction is capable of
accommodating its “fair share” of the region’s housing needs, known as the jurisdiction’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and complies with the current requirements
of State law; and
WHEREAS, cities and the unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County were assigned
new RHNAs in 2019 for use in updating their housing elements; and
WHEREAS, the City was given a RHNA of 692 housing units for the planning period of
2020-2028, including 170 units of very low income housing, 107 units of low income
housing, 124 units of moderate income housing, and 291 units of above moderate
housing; and
WHEREAS, a study session was held by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2020,
to discuss and receive feedback on the City’s draft Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, the City submitted the draft Housing Element Update to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on October 12, 2020, for
review and conditional certification; and
WHEREAS, the City received written comments from HCD on November 23, 2020,
suggesting further refinements and changes were required to the draft Housing Element;
and
WHEREAS, the City thereafter resubmitted a revised draft Housing Element Update to
HCD; and
WHEREAS, the revised draft Housing Element Update was granted conditional
certification by HCD on December 10, 2020; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing on the Housing Element Update was held by
the Planning Commission on January 5, 2021, at which time all interested persons were
given the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the Housing
Element Update at the public hearing on January 5, 2021; and
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 9.a. - Page 8
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public
testimony presented at the duly noticed public hearing held before it on January 26, 2021,
and the information contained in the Housing Element Update, staff report, and the
administrative record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this project in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that an addendum to the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is appropriate for the reasons set forth in the
addendum presented to the City Council at its meeting held on January 26, 2021.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande (i) adopts the Housing Element Update attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and directs
staff to submit the Housing Element Update to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development for final review and certification; (ii) adopts General Plan
Amendment No. 19-002; and (iii) and considers, relies upon and adopts the findings set
forth in the addendum to the General Plan EIR attached hereto as “Exhibit B” in
compliance with CEQA.
On motion of Council Member ________, seconded by Council Member_______, and on
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 26th day of January 2021.
Item 9.a. - Page 9
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
_______________________________
CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
ANNAMARIE PORTER, INTERIM CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
___________________________________
WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FROM:
__________________________________
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Item 9.a. - Page 10
JANUARY 2021
FINAL DRAFT
CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE
2020-2028
HOUSING
ELEMENT UPDATE
FOR THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
EXHIBIT AATTACHMENT 2
Item 9.a. - Page 11
Item 9.a. - Page 12
JANUARY 2021
FINAL DRAFT
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE • SAN DIEGO
www.placeworks.com
Prepared By:
P.O. Box 1316
San Luis Obispo, California 93406
t 805.457.5557
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
2020-2028 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Item 9.a. - Page 13
Item 9.a. - Page 14
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
i
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO CITY GENERAL PLAN ............................................................................................................... 2
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF HOUSING ELEMENT............................................................................................................... 2
1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..................................................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2 – GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 13
2.1 HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS ..................................................................................... 13
2.2 SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 33
CHAPTER 3 – BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................................ 35
3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 35
3.2 DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 38
3.3 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................................... 45
3.4 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ............................................................................................................................... 49
3.5 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS GROUPS .................................................................................................................. 53
3.6 AT-RISK HOUSING UNITS ................................................................................................................................. 60
CHAPTER 4 - HOUSING RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 63
4.1 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................................... 63
4.2 2020–2028 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION ..................................................................................... 64
4.3 LAND AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................................................ 66
4.4 INFRASTRUCTURE RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 75
4.5 FINANCIAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 77
4.6 ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................... 80
CHAPTER 5 – HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ...................................................................................................................... 83
5.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ...................................................................................................................... 83
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND ENERGY CONSERVATION .......................................................................... 105
5.3 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................................................ 109
CHAPTER 6 - REGIONAL VISION FOR HOUSING .................................................................................................... 111
OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................................... 111
ALIGNMENT WITH REGIONAL COMPACT............................................................................................................... 111
POLICIES .......................................................................................................................................................... 112
MOVING FORWARD .......................................................................................................................................... 112
CHAPTER 7 – REVIEW OF THE PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT .................................................................................. 113
APPENDIX
ELIGIBILITY LIST
Item 9.a. - Page 15
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
ii
List of Tables
TABLE 2-1 QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES BY INCOME GROUP ........................................................................................ 33
TABLE 3-1 TRENDS IN POPULATION GROWTH ............................................................................................................ 38
TABLE 3-2 POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS...................................................................................................... 38
TABLE 3-3 TRENDS IN POPULATION AGE .................................................................................................................... 39
TABLE 3-5 TRENDS IN HOUSEHOLD GROWTH ............................................................................................................. 40
TABLE 3-6 HOUSEHOLD TENURE .................................................................................................................................. 41
TABLE 3-7 TRENDS IN HOUSEHOLD INCOME ............................................................................................................. 42
TABLE 3-8 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH PROJECTIONS .................................................................................................... 42
TABLE 3-9 SAN LUIS OBISPO-PASO ROBLES-ARROYO GRANDE METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA PROJECTIONS
OF EMPLOYMENT ........................................................................................................................................................ 43
TABLE 3-10 LARGEST EMPLOYERS ............................................................................................................................... 44
TABLE 3-11 INDUSTRY PROFILE.................................................................................................................................... 44
TABLE 3-12 COMMUTE PATTERNS ............................................................................................................................... 45
TABLE 3-13 TRENDS IN HOUSING TYPE ....................................................................................................................... 45
TABLE 3-14 VACANT UNITS BY TYPE, 2017 ................................................................................................................. 46
TABLE 3-15 VACANCY RATES ..................................................................................................................................... 47
TABLE 3-16 OVERCROWDING BY TENURE .................................................................................................................. 47
TABLE 3-17 YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT ............................................................................................................................ 48
TABLE 3-18 MARKET RENTAL RATES BY UNIT TYPE ...................................................................................................... 50
TABLE 3-19 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY .......................................................................... 51
TABLE 3-20 TOTAL HOUSEHOLD OVERPAYMENT BY INCOME, 2015 ........................................................................ 52
TABLE 3-21 SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS .............................................................................................................................. 53
TABLE 3-22 HOUSING PROBLEMS FOR FEMALE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................. 54
TABLE 3-23 TENURE BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE ................................................................................................................... 54
TABLE 3-24 HOUSING PROBLEMS FOR LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................... 55
TABLE 3-25 PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY BY DISABILITY TYPE ................................................................................... 56
TABLE 3-26 PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS, 2013-2017 ...................................................... 57
TABLE 3-27 DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS ................................................................................................ 58
TABLE 3-28 DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED RESIDENTS BY RESIDENCE TYPE ............................................................. 59
TABLE 3-29 HOMELESSNESS, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY .......................................................................................... 60
TABLE 3-30 INVENTORY OF ASSISTED UNITS .............................................................................................................. 60
TABLE 4-1 INCOME GROUP ........................................................................................................................................ 63
TABLE 4-2 HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY.......................................................................... 64
TABLE 4-3 INCOME LIMITS, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ...................................................................................... 64
TABLE 4-4 CITY SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEED 2019–2028 .......................................................................... 65
TABLE 4-5 REMAINING RHNA, 2019–2028 ................................................................................................................. 66
TABLE 4-6 LAND INVENTORY ...................................................................................................................................... 69
TABLE 4-7 CURRENT AND PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY – ACRE-FEET PER YEAR (AFY) .............................................. 75
TABLE 5-1 URBAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE .......................................................................... 84
TABLE 5-2 HOUSING TYPES PERMITTED BY ZONING DISTRICT – RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT ............................. 86
TABLE 5-3 HOUSING TYPES PERMITTED BY ZONING DISTRICT – MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT ............................... 87
TABLE 5-4 RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS............................... 89
TABLE 5-5 RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MULTIPLE-FAMILY AND OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS ....... 90
TABLE 5-6 RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS ...................................... 90
TABLE 5-8 SCHEDULE OF TYPICAL FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 97
TABLE 5-9 SCHEDULE OF TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ........................ 98
TABLE 5-10 PROPORTION OF FEE IN OVERALL DEVELOPMENT COST FOR A TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
98
TABLE 5-11 PERMIT PROCESSING TIMELINE ............................................................................................................... 99
TABLE 5-12 RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 101
TABLE 5-13 CONSTRAINTS ON HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES .......................................................... 103
TABLE 5-14 APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS ................................................................................................................... 110
TABLE 6-1 REVIEW OF 2014-2019 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS ........................................................................ 114
Item 9.a. - Page 16
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
iii
List of Figures
FIGURE 3-1 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP .................................................................................................................... 36
FIGURE 3-2 SOUTH COUNTY LOCATION MAP ........................................................................................................... 37
FIGURE 3-3 CHANGE IN POPULATION AGE, 2010 TO 2017 ...................................................................................... 39
FIGURE 3-4 MEDIAN HOME PRICES TREND, ARROYO GRANDE AND COUNTY ....................................................... 50
FIGURE 4-1 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES INVENTORY MAP ................................................................................... 61
Item 9.a. - Page 17
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
iv
This page intentionally left blank.
Item 9.a. - Page 18
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
1
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify and provide: (a) An analysis of existing and
projected housing needs; (b) an evaluation of housing constraints, (c) a statement of goals,
policies, quantified objectives and financial resources; and (d) scheduled programs for the
preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The State Legislature, in its adoption of
planning law, has set forth the following policies toward the provision of housing:
• The availability of housing is of vital importance, and the early attainment of decent
housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farm workers, is
a priority of the highest order.
• The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of government
and the private sector to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the needs of
Californians of all economic levels.
• The provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households requires the
cooperation of all levels of government.
• Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to
facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for
the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
• The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government
also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and
community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local
governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs.
This document is intended to comply with Article 10.6 (as amended) of State Planning Law and to
meet the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidelines for
the implementation of Article 10.6. This document replaces the Housing Element adopted by the
City of Arroyo Grande on March 22, 2016. The Housing Element planning period will begin
December 31, 2020, and will last through December 31, 2028.
This Housing Element includes all the following information, as required by state law:
• Specific goals, policies, and measurable programs.
• Information about the existing housing stock, covering such items as the amount, type,
cost, tenure, and structural condition of the units. Other areas addressed include
overcrowding and the needs of special subgroups of the population.
• An analysis of potential barriers to housing production, including both governmental and
non-governmental constraints.
• Information about energy conservation opportunities for housing.
• A summary of the past housing-related efforts by the City and an analysis of their success
or failure.
Item 9.a. - Page 19
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
2
1.2 Relationship to City General Plan
Housing elements are one of eight elements of the General Plan that every California city and
county is required by state law to prepare. Under state law, a General Plan must function as an
integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of values. The housing, land use, and
circulation elements form the heart of a community strategy to promote orderly growth and
provide housing for all economic segments.
State law is very specific about the content of housing elements. The housing element is also the
only part of the general plan that is subject to mandatory deadlines for periodic updates that
include a review and “certification” by HCD.
General Plan Consistency
The City’s Land Use Element of the 2001 General Plan designates the sites noted in this Housing
Element for residential purposes at densities consistent with the goals of providing housing
affordable to a wide range of incomes. The Housing Element has been reviewed for consistency
with the City’s General Plan and is consistent with the policy direction in the plan. No
disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist in Arroyo Grande’s sphere of influence, so no
updates to the General Plan are needed to comply with Senate Bill (SB) 244. As portions of the
General Plan are amended in the future, the Housing Element will be reviewed to ensure internal
consistency.
1.3 Organization of Housing Element
As noted previously, the intent of this Housing Element update is to meet the statutory requirements
of state housing law. Chapter 1 provides a brief overview of the laws and its relationship to the
General Plan. Chapter 2 is the heart of the document, setting forth all the goals, policies, programs,
and objectives for housing in Arroyo Grande. Chapter 3 describes relevant demographics
concerning housing needs and issues in the City, while Chapter 4 discusses regional housing needs
and provides an overview of the City’s land availability and public services. Chapter 5 analyzes
the constraints to housing development and Chapter 6 sets forth a set of regional goals and
policies developed in coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo, the San Luis Obispo Council
of Governments, and all seven incorporated cities in the County. Chapter 7 reviews the past
housing efforts as proposed in the 2014–2019 Housing Element.
1.4 Public Participation
The California Government Code states that “the local government shall make a diligent effort to
achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of
the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.” While opportunities to connect
with the community are more limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City has participated
in the Regional Housing Action Team and the Regional Housing Summit, conducted a study
session with the Planning Commission and made the draft housing element available for public
review on the City’s website. The City also notified 10 Native American tribes about the initiation
of the Housing Element Update in Spring 2020 and invited them to comment on the process and
document. The Regional Housing Action Team and Regional Compact efforts are described in
Chapter 6.
Item 9.a. - Page 20
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
3
City staff presented along with the other jurisdictions in the county at the annual Housing Summit
held online on September 10, 2020. The summit was organized by the San Luis Obispo Chamber
of Commerce. This year’s online event was split into multiple days. The September 10th event was
dedicated to the regional housing planning efforts underway by the Regional Housing Action
Team including the regional portion of each jurisdiction’s housing element. Each city and the
county presented about their housing element and housing planning efforts and responded to
questions from the moderator and participants.
Public Draft Housing Element
The Draft Housing Element was published on the City of Arroyo Grande website and made
available for public comment on September 21, 2020. The City notified key stakeholders via email,
as listed in Appendix A. The City also notified these stakeholders about the October 6th study
session to give them the opportunity to participate.
Study Session
The City held a virtual public study session with the Planning Commission to solicit input on October
6, 2020. The format for this meeting was a presentation with an overview of the 6th-round Housing
Element update process and solicited input from the members of the Commission and meeting
attendees on the public review draft. Five Planning Commissioners, one City Councilmember, and
at least three members of the public attended the meeting. City staff and the City’s consultant
gave an introductory presentation and then a discussion was held with those at the session. There
were no requests for translation services at the meeting.
The following is a summary of the comments and questions received at the study session:
• The draft housing element is detailed but exceeds the City’s ability to complete all
identified tasks due to staff workload limits. Consider looking into other resources that could
be helpful to City staff.
• Are the goals in the goals, policies, and programs section in order of importance or priority
for implementation?
• Are Policy A.1 and the programs that go with it the only zoning changes identified in the
housing element?
• Are there certain areas in the City’s sphere of influence where Program D.1-1 would aim
to conduct specific plans?
• Does the state enforce the building of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and
if so, what they do to enforce?
• A commenter asked about a program that was removed from the existing housing
element regarding attainable housing and whether that type of housing is different from
affordable housing?
• The high density, low-income housing sites proposed across the city in the sites inventory
should be more well-distributed and spread across the city.
• There was a question about Policy A.2 regarding manufactured homes and whether
allowing manufactured homes in the way the policy calls for would be required?
• The City appears to promote rather than just allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the
draft housing element.
Item 9.a. - Page 21
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
4
• How does Policy G.2 actually apply in terms of consistency with state law? City staff talked
about the discretion on affordable housing projects being more limited than it was
historically because of state law.
• Child care facilities should be supported in the housing element.
• Multi-family housing as proposed is supported.
• The income levels need to be more clearly defined in Chapter 4 in Tables 4-2 and 4-3.
• Program A.1-3 from the previous housing element should be maintained to help distribute
sites and housing opportunities equally.
• Population trends displayed in the draft housing element are surprising and concerning,
especially related to age groups that have decreased in number in recent years.
• The draft housing element should not rely as heavily on ADUs to meet the RHNA.
• ADUs don’t provide ownership opportunities, so these units do not serve all segments of
the population.
• The City should adjust zoning to address missing middle housing by allowing housing types
like cottage homes and changing development standards.
• The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates a significant portion of land for single-
family uses which is inconsistent with the draft housing element’s assertion that the element
has goals consistent with providing housing affordable to a wide range of incomes.
• The private market controls housing development, and affordable housing is almost
exclusively developed by nonprofits. The City should incentivize the private sector to build
affordable housing and missing middle housing.
• ADUs are too small for many families, and the community needs more family-sized housing
in the city.
• The time that goes into creating the housing element does not result in enough affordable
housing.
• Modest growth in the city will likely continue, which is not inconsistent with the goal to
maintain community character.
• Construction cost estimates in the public draft housing element ($134 per square feet)
seem lower than reality.
• Comments were supportive of the regional chapter of the draft housing element and the
regional housing planning efforts. Planning Commissioners and elected officials should be
included in regional housing planning efforts.
Written Input Received on Draft Housing Element
In addition to feedback received at the study session, five organizations or members of the public
also submitted comment letters before the meeting. Some of those who wrote letters also
commented during the study session. Some of their comments from the letters maybe be included
under the summary of input during the study session above. Those comments are summarized
below:
• Access to affordable and quality child care should be supported in the housing element
through the following recommendations:
o Policies in Goal A, Goal B, and Goal I of the existing housing element should include
language to support the provision of affordable on-site child care facilities.
The housing element should acknowledge that single-parent and female-headed
households contribute a higher percentage of their income to housing costs, and
access to affordable and convenient child care is paramount.
Item 9.a. - Page 22
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
5
o Policies in Goal A, Goal B, and Goal I of the existing housing element should
promote intergenerational facilities – such as senior centers co-located near or with
child care centers.
o The housing element update should address the critical need to maximize outdoor
spaces, including those in proximity for outdoor learning environments and play for
a range of age groups.
• Affordable housing should be defined more clearly in the housing element.
• Missing middle housing is needed in Arroyo Grande and should be provided with specific
goals and priorities in the housing element update in the following ways:
o The City’s Land Use Element designates sites noted in the existing housing element
for residential purposes. While the existing housing element states that the
designated sites are a range of densities, consistent with the goals of providing
affordable housing, most of the residential land is zoned for single family uses. Single
family uses will never meet that goal.
o The City cannot enable and encourage multi-family uses without updating zoning,
given that the majority of the city’s land is currently zoned for single family uses.
There are few locations where duplexes and triplexes wouldn’t be appropriate.
o Given population trends shown in the draft housing element, the city appears to
be losing young families. None of the median salaries in the city are over $100,000.
We are building a city where the options are not feasible or desirable for young
families.
o Allow missing middle housing by permitting duplexes and triplexes by right
throughout existing single-family-zoned neighborhoods.
• ADUs projections make up the majority of the difference in all housing groups, and it is
unlikely that these housing groups will be met.
• Potential ADUs do not provide potential homeownership and 40 percent of housing will
not be available to people who don’t have a family member or friend who can rent them
their ADU. This is not an equitable or scalable scenario.
• Potential housing is contained in a handful of large, high-density projects. These projects
are slow to permit and build and encounter a lot of community resistance. It is not
reasonable to put them in the land inventory.
• The City should not hold meetings about this topic when people cannot attend the
meeting in person.
• We should not try to meet the needs of future residents. We should meet the needs of
current residents and keep it affordable. If we attract outsiders, this will increase housing
costs until we are squeezed out to accommodate all who want to live here.
• Not requiring off-street parking for all who live in these units is wrong.
• Where will all the water come from for these new residences? We need to ensure
adequate infrastructure is in place.
• Do not allow manufactured housing on legal parcels in all residential zoning districts
because it compromises community character in single-family residential areas.
• Most low-income housing sites in the sites inventory are in one area of Arroyo Grande, and
it should not be located all in one place. Streets in this area would be congested with a
high concentration of new residents. Schools would not be prepared to handle the
heightened enrollment generated by the new construction.
• Support Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo’s (HASLO) proposed large low-income
development on the vacant lot on the corner of Oak Park and El Camino Real, but the
Item 9.a. - Page 23
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
6
project should be reduced in scale to an appropriate housing density for the following
reasons:
o This project provides 50 percent of the low-income housing needed to meet the
RHNA through 2028. All other low-income housing sites are on the other side of
Highway 101.
o NYU Furman Center argues that dispersed low-income housing better matches
existing character, faces less community opposition, and integrates tenants into
the existing housing.
o This is the only project that has a “Realistic Dwelling Unit” number higher than the
maximum.
o The project will increase traffic flow on the nearby arterial corridor and in/around
the neighborhood. Some of these nearby intersections have existing safety
concerns that need to be addressed.
o Parking would be an issue. Existing street conditions and sizes cannot support the
new development. There is an existing lack of street parking.
o Building heights for this size of project would block views on existing properties.
Residential building heights should be limited to two stories.
o Oak trees on the project site contribute to the character and aesthetic of the
neighborhood and should be protected. The existing oak trees would scale and
screen new development.
• The draft housing element should include housing opportunities for all income categories
east and north of Highway 101, rather than concentrating them in only half of the city.
• The City did not implement Program A.1-3 in the 2014-2019 Housing Element, which would
have encouraged high-density, low-income housing east of Highway 101.
• The draft housing element should be revised to assume housing density in the Traffic Way
Mixed Use District is 20 units per acre.
• Opportunities for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income housing should be analyzed
in the Traffic Way Mixed Use District, Village Mixed Use zone east of Highway 101, and
Village Core Downtown zone east of Highway 101.
• The City should not rely on a single project to provide such a high percentage of the
anticipated future community housing resources. It will disproportionately impact
adjacent residents and businesses.
• Revise Policy A.5 to encourage residential uses in mixed-use and village core districts to
promote uniform spatial distribution of low-income housing.
• Changing the zoning at 700 Oak Park to by-right residential will make it difficult for the City
to comply with Policy G.2.
• Given population trends, the City should attract and retain younger residents and families
in part with a first-time homebuyer program.
Response to Input Received on Draft Housing Element
Edits to the public draft housing element were made after the October 6th study session prior to
submittal to HCD for review. Some of the comments summarized above were addressed by these
revisions as noted below.
• The draft housing element is detailed but exceeds the City’s ability to complete all
identified tasks due to staff workload limits. Consider looking into other resources that could
be helpful to City staff.
Item 9.a. - Page 24
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
7
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions made in draft in
response to this comment.
• Are the goals in the goals in the goals, policies, and programs section in order of
importance or priority for implementation?
o Response: No, they are not in order of priority.
• Are Policy A.1 and the programs that go with it the only zoning changes identified in the
housing element?
o Response: No, there are other programs in Chapter 2 that call for changes to the
Development Code/zoning ordinance.
• Are there certain areas in the City’s sphere of influence where Program D.1-1 would aim
to conduct specific plans?
o Response: No, the City doesn’t have certain areas in mind. The sphere of influence
area is relatively small, so the intent of this program is to make sure residential is a
priority when these areas are planned and annexed.
• Does the state enforce the building of the RHNA and if so, what they do to enforce?
o Response: The state has the statutory authority to enforce certain things related to
the RHNA including maintenance of enough sites to address the RHNA by the City.
Historically, the state has not penalized local jurisdictions for failing to develop
enough housing units to meet the RHNA by the end of the housing element
planning period.
• A commenter asked about a program that was removed from the existing housing
element regarding attainable housing and whether that type of housing is different from
affordable housing.
o Response: Attainable housing and affordable housing are not the same thing.
Attainable housing is for higher incomes than affordable housing and is more
consistent with the state’s moderate income category. As used in this housing
element affordable housing refers to the extremely low, very low and low income
categories.
• The high density, low-income housing sites proposed across the city in the sites inventory
should be more well-distributed and spread across the city.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Additional sites were added to Table
4-6 in the draft, some of which may be suitable for lower income housing.
• There was a question about Policy A.2 regarding manufactured homes and whether
allowing manufactured homes in the way the policy calls for would be required?
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment. Policy A.2 was included in the existing Housing Element and is
being carried forward into this cycle’s element.
• The City appears to promote rather than just allow ADUs in the draft housing element.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment.
• How does Policy G.2 actually apply in terms of consistency with state law? City staff talked
about the discretion on affordable housing projects being more limited than it was
historically because of state law.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Program F.1-4 has been added to
this draft to address streamlining of review of affordable housing projects. The
program will also address making standards for this type of project more objective.
• Child care facilities should be supported in the housing element.
Item 9.a. - Page 25
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
8
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Policies I.7 and I.8 were added in
response to this and other comments.
• Multi-family housing as proposed is supported.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment.
• The income levels need to be more clearly defined in Chapter 4 in Tables 4-2 and 4-3.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Tables 4-2 and 4-3 and
accompanying text was revised to address this comment.
• Program A.1-3 from the previous housing element should be maintained to help distribute
sites and housing opportunities equally.
o Response: This program has been continued in the draft.
• Population trends displayed in the draft housing element are surprising and concerning,
especially related to age groups that have decreased in number in recent years.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment.
• The draft housing element should not rely as heavily on ADUs to meet the RHNA.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: The number of ADUs projected was
reduced from 350 to 236 in Table 4-5.
• ADUs don’t provide ownership opportunities, so these units do not serve all segments of
the population.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: The number of ADUs projected was
reduced from 350 to 236 in Table 4-5 and more sites for housing were added to
Table 4-6.
• The City should adjust zoning to address missing middle housing by allowing housing types
like cottage homes and changing development standards.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Policy A.15 was added to address
this and other comments regarding missing middle housing.
• The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates a significant portion of land for single-
family uses which is inconsistent with the draft housing element’s assertion that the element
has goals consistent with providing housing affordable to a wide range of incomes.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment.
• The private market controls housing development, and affordable housing is almost
exclusively developed by nonprofits. The City should incentivize the private sector to build
affordable housing and missing middle housing.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment, except to the extent that greater incentivization occurs through
streamlined review processes and new Program F.1-4.
• ADUs are too small for many families, and the community needs more family-sized housing
in the city.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: The number of ADUs projected was
reduced from 350 to 236 in Table 4-5 and more sites for housing were added to
Table 4-6.
• The time that goes into creating the housing element does not result in enough affordable
housing.
o Response: Comment noted.
• Modest growth in the city will likely continue, which is not inconsistent with the goal to
maintain community character.
Item 9.a. - Page 26
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
9
o Response: Comment noted.
• Construction cost estimates in the public draft housing element ($134 per square foot)
seem lower than reality.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: The cost per square foot was
increased to $140/square foot based on City records from a recent housing
development project.
• Comments were supportive of the regional chapter of the draft housing element and the
regional housing planning efforts. Planning Commissioners and elected officials should be
included in regional housing planning efforts.
o Response: Comment noted.
• Access to affordable and quality child care should be supported in the housing element
through the following recommendations:
o Policies in Goal A, Goal B, and Goal I of the existing housing element should include
language to support the provision of affordable on-site child care facilities.
The housing element should acknowledge that single-parent and female-headed
households contribute a higher percentage of their income to housing costs, and
access to affordable and convenient child care is paramount.
o Policies in Goal A, Goal B, and Goal I of the existing housing element should
promote intergenerational facilities – such as senior centers co-located near or with
child care centers.
o The housing element update should address the critical need to maximize outdoor
spaces, including those in proximity for outdoor learning environments and play for
a range of age groups.
o Revisions to draft in response to these comments: Policies I.7 and I.8 were added in
response to these and other comments.
• Affordable housing should be defined more clearly in the housing element.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Tables 4-2 and 4-3 were revised.
• Missing middle housing is needed in Arroyo Grande and should be provided with specific
goals and priorities in the housing element update in the following ways:
o The City’s Land Use Element designates sites noted in the existing housing element
for residential purposes. While the existing housing element states that the
designated sites are a range of densities, consistent with the goals of providing
affordable housing, most of the residential land is zoned for single family uses. Single
family uses will never meet that goal.
o The City cannot enable and encourage multi-family uses without updating zoning,
given that the majority of the city’s land is currently zoned for single family uses.
There are few locations where duplexes and triplexes wouldn’t be appropriate.
o Given population trends shown in the draft housing element, the city appears to
be losing young families. None of the median salaries in the city are over $100,000.
We are building a city where the options are not feasible or desirable for young
families.
o Allow missing middle housing by permitting duplexes and triplexes by right
throughout existing single-family-zoned neighborhoods.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Policy A.15 was added to address
this and other comments regarding missing middle housing. Some missing middle
housing types like twin homes or duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes are already
allowed in the single-family zoning district under the City’s Development Code.
Item 9.a. - Page 27
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
10
• ADUs projections make up the majority of the difference in all housing groups, and it is
unlikely that these housing groups will be met.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: The number of ADUs projected was
reduced from 350 to 236 in Table 4-5 and more sites for housing were added to
Table 4-6.
• Potential ADUs do not provide potential homeownership and 40 percent of housing will
not be available to people who don’t have a family member or friend who can rent them
their ADU. This is not an equitable or scalable scenario.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: The number of ADUs projected was
reduced from 350 to 236 in Table 4-5 and more sites for housing were added to
Table 4-6. The reference to 40 percent of ADUs being rented to family and friends
is not specific to ADUs in Arroyo Grande in terms of what is available. This
percentage is cited on page 68 of this draft as part of the basis for affordability
assumptions for ADUs in combination the countywide ADU market study that
collected rents for ADUs and concluded that there are affordable ADUs for rent in
Arroyo Grande. There was no conclusion that 40 percent of ADUs in the City are
rented only to family and friends.
• Potential housing is contained in a handful of large, high-density projects. These projects
are slow to permit and build and encounter a lot of community resistance. It is not
reasonable to put them in the land inventory.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment.
• The City should not hold meetings about this topic when people cannot attend the
meeting in person.
o Response: This meeting was noticed, and the community had the opportunity to
submit written comments or call in to the virtual meeting to provide live verbal
comments.
• We should not try to meet the needs of future residents. We should meet the needs of
current residents and keep it affordable. If we attract outsiders, this will increase housing
costs until we are squeezed out to accommodate all who want to live here.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment.
• Not requiring off-street parking for all who live in these units is wrong.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment.
• Where will all the water come from for these new residences? We need to ensure
adequate infrastructure is in place.
o Response: Water availability is discussed on page 76 of this draft.
• Do not allow manufactured housing on legal parcels in all residential zoning districts
because it compromises community character in single-family residential areas.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment.
• Most low-income housing sites in the sites inventory are in one area of Arroyo Grande, and
it should not be located all in one place. Streets in this area would be congested with a
high concentration of new residents. Schools would not be prepared to handle the
heightened enrollment generated by the new construction.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Additional sites were added to Table
4-6 in the draft, some may be suitable for lower income housing.
Item 9.a. - Page 28
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
11
• Support HASLO’s proposed large low-income development on the vacant lot on the
corner of Oak Park and El Camino Real, but the project should be reduced in scale to an
appropriate housing density for the following reasons:
o This project provides 50 percent of the low-income housing needed to meet the
RHNA through 2028. All other low-income housing sites are on the other side of
Highway 101.
o NYU Furman Center argues that dispersed low-income housing better matches
existing character, faces less community opposition, and integrates tenants into
the existing housing.
o This is the only project that has a “Realistic Dwelling Unit” number higher than the
maximum.
o The project will increase traffic flow on the nearby arterial corridor and in/around
the neighborhood. Some of these nearby intersections have existing safety
concerns that need to be addressed.
o Parking would be an issue. Existing street conditions and sizes cannot support the
new development. There is an existing lack of street parking.
o Building heights for this size of project would block views on existing properties.
Residential building heights should be limited to two stories.
o Oak trees on the project site contribute to the character and aesthetic of the
neighborhood and should be protected. The existing oak trees would scale and
screen new development.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment.
• The draft housing element should include housing opportunities for all income categories
east and north of Highway 101, rather than concentrating them in only half of the city.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Additional sites were added to Table
4-6 in the draft, some of which may be suitable for lower income housing.
• The City did not implement Program A.1-3 in the 2014-2019 Housing Element, which would
have encouraged high-density, low-income housing east of Highway 101.
o Response: This program has been continued in the draft.
• The draft housing element should be revised to assume housing density in the Traffic Way
Mixed Use District is 20 units per acre.
o Response: See response to previous comment.
• Opportunities for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income housing should be analyzed
in the Traffic Way Mixed Use District, Village Mixed Use zone east of Highway 101, and
Village Core Downtown zone east of Highway 101.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment.
• The City should not rely on a single project to provide such a high percentage of the
anticipated future community housing resources. It will disproportionately impact
adjacent residents and businesses.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Additional sites were added to Table
4-6 in the draft, some of which may be suitable for lower income housing.
• Revise Policy A.5 to encourage residential uses in mixed-use and village core districts to
promote uniform spatial distribution of low-income housing.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment.
Item 9.a. - Page 29
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
12
• Changing the zoning at 700 Oak Park to by-right residential will make it difficult for the City
to comply with Policy G.2.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment.
• Given population trends, the City should attract and retain younger residents and families
in part with a first-time homebuyer program.
o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response
to this comment.
Additional Written Input Received
One comment letter on the housing element was received after the draft was submitted to HCD
for their 60-day review. The letter was from the San Luis Obispo County Council of Governments.
They had a couple comments in support of actions proposed in the draft housing element. They
also asked what additional outreach was occurring on the housing element.
Item 9.a. - Page 30
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
13
CHAPTER 2 – GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
2.1 Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Programs
State law requires that the Housing Element contain a “statement of the community’s goals,
policies, programs and quantified objectives relative to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing.” This chapter describes the proposed goals, policies, and programs of
the Housing Element for the City of Arroyo Grande.
Goals refer to general statements of purpose and indicate a direction the City will take with
respect to the identified housing problems. Policies are statements of the City’s intent regarding
the various housing issues identified and provide a link between the goals and the programs.
Programs are steps to be taken to implement the policies and achieve the quantified objectives.
Quantified Objectives refer to the number of units that are expected or estimated to be
constructed, conserved, or rehabilitated during the time frame of the Housing Element, December
31, 2020, to December 31, 2028 (not all programs have quantified objectives).
Goal A – Housing for All Income Groups within the Community.
Provide a continuing supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of existing and future Arroyo
Grande residents in all income categories.
Policies:
A.1. The City shall adopt policies, programs, and procedures to attempt to meet the
present and future needs of residents of the City, and to aim at providing the fair-share
regional housing need allocated for each income classification, within identified
governmental, market, economic, and natural constraints.
A.2. The City shall continue to use the following incentives for the production of affordable
housing: (a) allowing accessory dwelling units under specified criteria; (b) allowing
manufactured housing on legal parcels in all residential zoning districts; (c) allowing
density bonuses for very low- and low-income housing, senior housing projects, and
any other project types called for under state law.
A.3. The City shall give priority to processing housing projects that provide for affordable
housing, and lower development impact fees shall be charged as an incentive for low,
very low, and extremely low-income housing.
A.4. The City shall establish minimum residential densities that are no lower than 75 percent
of the maximum densities allowed in each multifamily residential zoning district, with
exceptions made for properties with significant environmental constraints.
A.5. The City shall encourage housing compatible with commercial and office uses and
promote “mixed-use” and “village core” zoning districts to facilitate integration of
residential uses into such areas.
Item 9.a. - Page 31
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
14
A.6. Where circumstances warrant, the City will work with mobile home owners to relocate
mobile homes if the City seeks to modify a portion or all of a mobile home park for
economic development purposes.
A.7. The City will continue to maintain a zoning district for mobile home and manufactured
home park uses.
A.8. The City may annex land on the urban edge to promote orderly growth and the
preservation of open space.
A.9. The City shall continue to enable and encourage multiple-family, rental apartments,
senior, mobile home, and special needs housing in appropriate locations and densities.
These multiple-family residential alternative housing types tend to be more affordable
than prevailing single-family residential low- and medium-density developments.
A.10. The City shall review and revise its development regulations, standards, and
procedures to encourage increased housing supply, as needed.
A.11. The City shall continue to use and expand the density bonus program to encourage
affordable housing supply.
A.12. The City shall continue to maintain a system to inventory vacant and underutilized
land.
A.13. The City shall pursue adequate water sources and conservation programs to
accommodate projected residential development.
A.14. The City shall pursue program assistance for first-time home buyers.
A.15. The City shall encourage the development of "missing middle" housing, including an
evaluation of the zoning, design standards, and policies necessary to enable the types
of housing that best serve "missing middle" households.
Programs:
A.1-1. To comply with Assembly Bill (AB) 1397, the Development Code shall be amended to allow
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 077-011-010, 077-204-028, 077-211-022, and 077-221-031
in the land inventory in this sixth-round Housing Element to be developed for residential use
by-right, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65583.2(c). This zoning
change is necessary because parcel 077-011-010 which is vacant was included in the
City’s fourth- and fifth-round Housing Elements and has not yet developed for housing and
the other three parcels which are non-vacant were included in the City’s fifth round
Housing Element. This by-right (without discretionary review) requirement will only apply to
housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-
income households. The application of the requirement should not be used to further
constrain the development of housing. As such, housing developments that do not contain
the requisite 20 percent would still be allowed to be developed according to the
underlying (base) zoning. These parcels are currently zoned Office Mixed-Use (OMU) and
Fair Oaks Mixed Use (FOMU) which require a Use Permit for multifamily housing
development. The City shall modify the Development Code to reflect the by-right
Item 9.a. - Page 32
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
15
provisions described in this program within three years of the beginning of the sixth-cycle
Housing Element planning period, which is December 31, 2023.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development, Planning Commission, City
Council
Timeframe: Amend zoning by December 31, 2023
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Development Code amendment
Quantified Objective: 98 lower income units on these parcels and the other parcels that
the parcel at 700 Oak Park Boulevard (APN 077-011-010) is combined with.
A.1-2. The City shall amend the Development Code to revise the requirements for the Traffic Way
Mixed-Use District to remove the limitation of only live-work residential uses. A mix of
residential use types shall be allowed consistent with all the mixed-use zoning districts
(except the Industrial Mixed-Use District). The Development Code shall also be amended
to allow residential projects at densities up to 20 units per acre in the Traffic Way Mixed-
Use District.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within three years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Development Code amendment
Quantified Objective: 10 moderate-income units, 10 above-moderate-income units
A.1-3. To mitigate the loss of affordable housing units, new housing developments shall be
required to replace affordable housing units lost due to new development. In accordance
with 65583.2 subdivision (g), the City also will require replacement housing units subject to
the requirements of Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (c)(3) on sites identified
in the sites inventory when any new development (residential, mixed-use or non-
residential) occurs on a site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lower-
income households at any time during the previous five years.
This requirement applies to:
• Non-vacant sites
• Vacant sites with previous residential uses that have been vacated or demolished
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing, the replacement requirement will be implemented immediately and
applied as applications on identified sites are received and processed, 2020–2028
Funding Source: General Fund
A.2-1. The City shall continue to encourage and publicize on the City’s website the accessory
dwelling program to increase public awareness, including a flowchart to aid in the
application process. The City will also amend the accessory dwelling unit regulations in the
Development Code for consistency with updates to state law. In addition, as part of the
Item 9.a. - Page 33
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
16
ordinance update, the City will evaluate ADU requirements related to off-street parking,
lot coverage and open space, setbacks, maximum size and height and passageways,
entrances and orientation; and adjust them as feasible to be more permissive than what
is required by state law. The City will evaluate and adopt pre-approved accessory dwelling
unit plans to streamline the approval process and lower development costs for applicants.
Additional outreach regarding ADUs and the pre-approved plans will be conducted,
including the steps detailed in the REAP (AB 101) grant work program. This outreach will
include flyers, promotional materials and other outreach to further spread the word about
ADUs and ADU-related resources in Arroyo Grande. The City will monitor ADU permitting
throughout the planning period to track whether permits are keeping up with the ADUs
anticipated in the housing element, including affordability. The City will monitor the
number and affordability of ADUs every two years and include additional actions as
appropriate including conducting additional outreach if ADU permits are not keeping up
with numbers anticipated in the housing element after 2 years and every 2 years
thereafter. The outreach will include regular announcements (at least once a month)
about options to build ADUs and ADU resources at Planning Commission and City Council
meetings and prominent placement of ADU information and the process to permit them
on the City’s website. If ADUs are not occurring consistent with assumptions in the element,
the City will amend and submit the housing element to HCD to identify adequate sites to
accommodate the RHNA.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Amend Development Code by May 31, 2021 and if needed later in the
planning period to address any new updates to state law, and enforce state law until the
zoning is updated. Assess ADU approval progress by the end of 2022 and every two years
thereafter, and conduct additional outreach and amend the housing element after that
if ADU numbers are not tracking with projections in Chapter 4 of the Housing Element.
Funding: General Fund, SB 2 funds, and AB 101 funds
Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is continued consistent production of accessory
dwelling units as an affordable housing alternative.
Quantified Objective: 15 low income and 14-15 moderate income units/year during the
planning period. Total of 120 low-income and 116 moderate income units for the
planning period.
A.2-2. To further encourage ADU creation, the City shall establish an amnesty program in
compliance with Senate Bill 13 to facilitate the process of bringing unpermitted ADUs into
compliance with local regulations including the building code by owners of this type of
unit. Senate Bill 13 requires under certain circumstances specified by state law, that
enforcement of violations related to unpermitted ADUs be delayed for 5 years if correcting
the violations are not necessary to protect health and safety. The City program would
consider reductions in fees associated with necessary upgrades to bring the unit up to
code along with providing information and staff assistance with the steps in the process to
bring the unit up to code.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Develop and put amnesty program into place by May 31, 2022.
Funding: General Fund
Item 9.a. - Page 34
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
17
Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is adding accessory dwelling units to the City’s
housing stock as unpermitted units become legal.
Quantified Objective: See quantified objectives under Program A.2-1.
A.3-1. The City shall amend the Municipal Code to encourage the development of affordable
housing projects, including expedited permitting, providing financial assistance through
the City’s In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fund, requiring lot consolidation, and providing
greater flexibility in development standards.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within five years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund and SB 2 funds
Expected Outcome: Additional affordable units
Quantified Objective: Five very low-income and five low-income units
A.3-2. The City shall amend the Development Code to provide additional incentives specifically
for extremely low-income housing projects. Incentives may include flexible standards for
on- and off-site improvements, such as reduced parking requirements, reduced curb,
gutter, and sidewalk requirements; reduced or deferred water and/or sewer connection
fees; development review and permit streamlining procedures; or financial incentives and
assistance.
Responsible agency/department: City Manager, Public Works, and Community
Development
Timeframe: Amend Development Code by 2022
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Draft program or ordinance to incentivize and/or streamline
permitting and procedures for extremely low-income housing developments
Quantified Objective: Two extremely low-income units
A.3-3. The City shall consider a program to waive, reduce or defer impact fees for ADUs and
projects with deed-restricted affordable units.
Responsible agency/department: City Manager, Community Development, Planning
Commission and City Council
Timeframe: Amend Fees by December 31, 2021
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Consider and potentially establish a fee waiver or reduction for
ADUs and affordable units
Quantified Objective: See quantified objectives under Program A.2-1
A.10-1. To facilitate affordable housing, the City shall comply with State Density Bonus Law. The
City shall update Development Code Chapter 16.82 to comply with current state density
bonus law. The City will continue to update Chapter 16.82 on an ongoing basis to comply
with any future updates to State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 et
seq.), as well as evaluate proposed Development Code amendments to assess whether
they pose any constraints to developer utilization of density bonuses.
Item 9.a. - Page 35
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
18
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Amend Development Code Chapter 16.82 to comply with Government Code
Section 65915 et seq. – Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption; Assess Development
Code Amendments - Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: City-initiated Development Code amendments
Quantified Objective: 20 lower-income units
A.10-2. To encourage higher densities and reduce constraints to multifamily housing production,
the City shall amend the Development Code to allow densities up to 20 du/ac in the OMU
District and up to 25 du/ac in the FOMU and GMU districts for 100% multifamily housing
projects with a Minor-Use Permit (MUP) subject to design review through the Architectural
Review Committee. Mixed-use projects will continue to have a maximum allowed density
of 20 du/ac in OMU and 25 du/ac in FOMU and GMU.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Remove barrier to construct affordable housing
A.12-1. The City shall continue to maintain its geographical information system (GIS) mapping and
planning database inventory of vacant and underutilized “opportunity sites.”
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Maintain land availability inventory
Quantified Objective: Maintain sites available for 692 units to address the City’s RHNA
A.14-1. The City shall establish a program to assist first-time home buyers.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund; HCD Home Investments Partnerships Program (HOME)
Expected Outcome: Development of a first-time home buyers’ program
Goal B – Affordable Housing.
Ensure that housing constructed in the City is affordable to all income levels.
Policies:
B.1. All residential projects that receive additional densities or other City incentives to
include affordable housing shall be placed into a City-approved program to maintain
the affordability for at least 45 (owner-occupied) or 55 years (rental units). Any sale or
change of ownership of these affordable units prior to satisfying the year restriction shall
Item 9.a. - Page 36
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
19
be “rolled over” for same amount of years to protect “at risk” units. For rental housing,
affordability shall be maintained through recorded agreements between a property
owner and the City, its Housing Authority, or another housing provider approved by the
City. For owner-occupied units, long-term affordability can be maintained through
property-owner agreements to maintain the designated unit as affordable for the
specified period, using a promissory note and deed of trust recorded on the property.
B.2. The City shall continue monitoring affordable units to ensure ongoing compliance with
the sales limits or rental rates established by agreement between the City and the
developer. The City shall continue to take the necessary steps to ensure compliance
with the regulatory agreement, including consideration of contracting with a housing
authority or joining a regional monitoring agency if one is developed.
B.3. The City may establish parking districts, or off-site shared parking, and use of in-lieu fees
where appropriate to enable additional density.
B.4. Affordable housing shall not be concentrated into a condensed, identifiable portion
of a development or subdivision but rather dispersed throughout and integrated into
the development as determined acceptable considering site constraints, size, and
design.
B.5. The City shall continue to regulate the use of existing residences on residentially zoned
properties as vacation rentals.
Programs:
B.2-1. The City may contract with the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo, local non-profit
organizations, or a regional monitoring agency for the monitoring of affordable units to
ensure compliance with terms of development agreements and/or affordable housing
agreements.
Responsible agency/department: City Manager and Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: Fees for service
Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is consistent monitoring of affordable units.
B.5-1. The City shall monitor the loss of permanent housing from vacation rentals and consider
modifying the Development Code to adjust for this loss.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Program to monitor vacation rentals
Goal C – Identify Funding for Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low-Income Housing.
Research and identify various additional financial and other resources to provide extremely low,
very low, and low-income housing for current and future residents of the City.
Item 9.a. - Page 37
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
20
Policies:
C.1. The City shall establish criterion for allocating financial resources from its In-Lieu
Affordable Housing Fund to augment extremely low, very low, and low-income housing
development.
C.2. The City shall consider issuance of bonds to finance extremely low, very low, and low-
income housing.
C.3. The City shall pursue state and federal funds to finance extremely low, very low, and
low-income housing.
C.4. The City shall consider cooperation with non-profit organizations and other developers
for loan and/or grant applications to provide extremely low, very low, and low-income
housing.
Programs:
C.1-1. The City shall continue to allocate financial resources to augment extremely low, very low,
and low-income housing development based on the financial projection of the In-Lieu
Affordable Housing Fund.
Responsible agency/department: City Manager/Community Development
Timeframe: During City budgeting cycle
Funding: Inclusionary Affordable Housing Trust Fund/Other sources, as identified
Expected Outcome: Funding to finance affordable housing
Quantified Objective: Three extremely low, three very low, and twenty low-income units
C.4-1. The City shall continue to meet with local non-profit and private developers semi-annually
or more frequently if opportunities arise, to promote the extremely low, very low, and low-
income housing programs and programs for special needs residents (including those who
are homeless) outlined in the Housing Element. The City shall direct private housing
developers to funding sources (such as federal and state housing grant fund programs
and local housing trust funds) to promote affordable housing, as outlined in the policies of
Goal C.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development and City Manager
Timeframe: Twice per year
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Increased awareness of the City’s desire to provide affordable
housing and to accommodate affordable housing
C.4-2. The City shall continue to participate in financial incentive programs established by the
San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund, such as a revolving loan program.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development and City Manager
Item 9.a. - Page 38
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
21
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Leverage of financial resources to augment development of
affordable housing
Quantified Objective: Loan(s) provided for five very low- income units
Goal D – Encourage Diverse Housing Stock.
In order to provide affordable housing, especially for extremely low, very low, and low-income
households, encourage apartment construction.
Policies:
D.1. The City shall relax parking standards for apartments containing extremely low, very
low, low, and/or senior housing.
D.2. Evaluate the procedure for calculating density in multi-family and mixed-use
developments.
Programs:
D.1-1. The City shall encourage specific plans for land within its sphere of influence that include
increased capacity for residential development.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing, as specific plans are approved
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Possible increased land inventory to support affordable housing
D.1-2. The City shall review the parking standards for affordable and senior housing projects and
reduce them to the greatest extent possible.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Review parking standards by December 31, 2022; Revise parking standards in
Development Code by December 31, 2023.
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Remove constraints associated with parking requirements for
affordable and senior housing projects
Goal E – Inclusionary Housing.
Strengthen the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance to require more affordable units in both
residential and commercial development projects.
Policies:
E.1. The City shall require housing projects greater than two units to meet inclusionary
housing requirements by (1) payment of in-lieu fee, (2) on-site construction of
affordable units, or (3) dedication of land. An inclusionary unit is defined as one that
will meet the state’s standards for affordable housing.
Item 9.a. - Page 39
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
22
E.2. An “affordable housing agreement” shall be required for projects subject to the
Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance.
Programs:
E.1-1. The City shall evaluate and consider amending the inclusionary affordable housing
requirements in the Development Code (Chapter 16.80) based on experience using the
requirements in producing affordable units. In addition, the City shall continue to amend
the in-lieu fee as needed and as called for in Chapter 16.80.
Potential changes to the requirements include: (1) consider contracting with a housing
management organization to manage deed-restricted affordable units in the City; (2)
consider adding incentives to encourage construction of rental units; and (3) investigate
extending the income categories served by the inclusionary requirements to extremely
low-income households. The City will engage the development community during the
evaluation process.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development, Planning Commission, and
City Council
Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Amendments to the inclusionary affordable housing requirements
and inclusionary in-lieu fee
Quantified Objective: Two extremely low, five very low, 10 low, and 15 moderate-income
units
Goal F – Mitigate Governmental Constraints.
Create clearer regulations and streamline the approval process for affordable housing projects.
Policies:
F.1. The City shall review and periodically amend its Development Code and design review
regulations and procedures to streamline permit processing for affordable housing
projects and minimize application and development review costs.
Programs:
F.1-1. The City shall work with non-profit organizations to maintain a list of persons interested in
development projects containing affordable housing. Agendas for all City meetings
related to these projects shall be sent to persons on the list. The City shall also continue to
post the agendas on the City’s website.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Increased public awareness of affordable housing projects.
Item 9.a. - Page 40
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
23
F.1-2. The City shall address and remove, replace or modify the use permit requirements for
multifamily development in multifamily zones to promote certainty in the approval process,
increase objectivity and address the CUP and MUP requirements as a constraint. Examples
of action include:
• Replace the use permit requirements with a site plan review, including approval
guidance on development and design standards
• Raise unit threshold allowed without an MUP or CUP to a greater threshold than
currently allowed in consultation with HCD
• Revise findings for use permits to be more objective, including limiting compatibility
criteria to health and safety issues
• Reduce the level of review for this type of project to more ministerial processes
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Remove barrier to construct affordable housing
Quantified Objective: 15 lower income units
F.1-3. Establish a written policy or procedure and other guidance as appropriate to specify the
SB 35 (2017) streamlining approval process and standards for eligible projects, as set forth
under California Government Code, Section 65913.4.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: December 2021
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Remove barriers to construct affordable housing
F.1-4. Conduct a comprehensive review of the Development Code and the General Plan and
replace any subjective standards that may apply to housing projects with objective design
standards in compliance with applicable State law. This will include revising the findings for
design review to be objective.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: December 2025
Funding: General Fund, Grant Funding (e.g. SB 2, AB 101)
Expected Outcome: Streamline review process and remove barriers to construct
affordable housing
F.1-5. The City will establish a written process to comply with Senate Bill 1087 and identify ways to
move forward with improvements to water and wastewater infrastructure as needed in
order to maintain sufficient infrastructure and capacity to serve the City’s housing need.
This will include working on planning, funding and construction of infrastructure.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development, Public Works
Timeframe: Assess needs annually
Item 9.a. - Page 41
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
24
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Maintain sufficient water and wastewater infrastructure and
capacity
Goal G – Housing Conservation and Rehabilitation.
Conserve and rehabilitate the City’s older stock, particularly to provide affordable housing.
Policies:
G.1. The City shall encourage private and public financing of affordable housing
rehabilitation.
G.2. The City shall ensure zoning compatibility when integrating public affordable housing
projects into existing residential neighborhoods. All impacts relating to neighborhood
stability and quality of life issues shall also be considered as allowed under state law.
Programs:
G.1-1. The City shall continue to coordinate with the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority to
maintain and expand Section 8 rental housing assistance to qualified households.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing, when eligible
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Continued affordable housing.
G.1-2. The City shall develop a program to offer housing developers an alternative to meet
affordable housing requirements by contributing some “sweat equity” on projects where
existing housing units will be rehabilitated or conserved as affordable, pursuant to the City’s
Affordable Housing Program.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Conservation and rehabilitation of existing housing stock
Quantified Objective: Five low-income housing units
G.2-1. The City shall continue to consider abatement of unsafe or unsanitary structures, including
buildings or rooms inappropriately used for housing contrary to adopted health and safety
codes. Where feasible, the City will encourage rehabilitation and allow reasonable notice
and time to correct deficiencies.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Conservation of existing housing stock
Item 9.a. - Page 42
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
25
Goal H – At-Risk Unit Preservation.
Preservation of at-risk units in Arroyo Grande.
Policies:
H.1. The City shall establish a notification procedure to occupants of affordable housing
units of conversion to market-rate units.
H.2. The City shall assist in the preservation of affordable units at risk of conversion to market-
rate units.
Programs:
H.1-1. The City will monitor the list of all dwellings in Arroyo Grande that are subsidized by
government funding or low-income housing developed through local regulations or
incentives. The list will include, at least, the number of units, the type of government
program, and the date on which the units are at risk to convert to market-rate dwellings.
No units have been identified as at risk of converting to market rate within 10 years of the
beginning of the sixth-round Housing Element planning period. The City will work to reduce
the potential conversion of any units to market rate through the following actions:
• Monitor the status of affordable projects, rental projects, and mobile homes in Arroyo
Grande. Should the property owners indicate the desire to convert properties, consider
providing technical and financial assistance, when possible, to ensure long-term
affordability.
• If conversion of units is likely, work with local service providers as appropriate to seek
funding to subsidize the at-risk units in a way that mirrors the HUD Housing Choice
Voucher (Section 8) program. Funding sources may include state or local funding
sources.
Pursuant to state law, owners of deed-restricted affordable projects are required to
provide notice of restrictions that are expiring after January 1, 2021, to all prospective
tenants, existing tenants, and the City within three years of the scheduled expiration of
rental restrictions. In addition, the City or owner will provide notice to HUD and the San Luis
Obispo Housing Authority. Owners shall also refer tenants of at-risk units to educational
resources regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures and information regarding
Section 8 rent subsidies and any other affordable housing opportunities in the City. In
addition, notice shall be required prior to conversion of any units to market rate for any
additional deed-restricted lower-income units that were constructed with the aid of
government funding, that were required by inclusionary zoning requirements, that were
part of a project granted a density bonus, or that were part of a project that received
other incentives.
If a development is offered for sale, HCD must certify persons or entities that are eligible to
purchase the development and to receive notice of the pending sale. Placement on the
eligibility list (see Appendix) will be based on experience with affordable housing.
When necessary, the City shall continue to work with property owners of deed-restricted
affordable units who need to sell within 45 years of initial sale. When the seller is unable to
Item 9.a. - Page 43
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
26
sell to an eligible buyer within a specified time period, equity-sharing provisions are
established (pursuant to the affordable housing agreement for the property), whereby the
difference between the affordable and market value is paid to the City to eliminate any
incentive to sell the converted unit at market rate. Funds generated would then be used
to develop additional affordable housing within the City. The City shall continue tracking
all residential projects that include affordable housing to ensure that the affordability is
maintained for at least 45 years for owner-occupied units and 55 years for rental units, and
that any sale or change of ownership of these affordable units prior to satisfying the 45- or
55-year restriction shall be “rolled over” for another 45 or 55 years to protect “at-risk” units.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing communication with owners, service providers, and eligible potential
purchasers; work with owners of deed-restricted units on an ongoing basis – in particular
at the time of change of ownership.
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Preservation of existing affordable units
Quantified Objective: Preserve 30 assisted units
Special Needs
Goal I – Special Needs Housing.
Meet the housing needs of special groups of Arroyo Grande residents, including seniors, persons
with disabilities, persons with developmental disabilities, single parents, large families, and
farmworkers.
Policies:
I.1. The City shall encourage and shall seek funding to assist in the development of low-
and moderate-income senior rentals.
I.2. The City shall permit larger group housing for seniors in appropriate multiple-family or
mixed-use locations, subject to discretionary review.
I.3. The City shall continue to allow small-scale group housing (less than seven persons) in
multiple-family residential districts, in accordance with applicable state laws.
I.4. The City shall encourage multiple-family housing projects that include a portion of the
units with three or more bedrooms to accommodate larger families.
I.5. The development of housing for farmworkers shall be encouraged.
I.6. Co-housing and similar unconventional housing arrangements shall be considered in
appropriate locations subject to review and approval on a case-by-case basis.
I.7. The City shall encourage the development of housing projects that include on-site
child care facilities, particularly where projects propose 50 or more housing units or
50,000 or more square feet of commercial or industrial space.
Item 9.a. - Page 44
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
27
I.8. The City shall encourage the development of projects and facilities that promote inter-
generational uses and activities.
Programs:
I.1-1. The City shall continue to promote housing opportunities for seniors and other special
needs groups by identifying sites suitable for senior and transitional housing and
considering other incentives to promote senior and transitional housing. Single-room
occupancy units (SROs) shall be added to the use tables in the Development Code as
allowed in all mixed-use zoning districts with a CUP. SROs shall be allowed in the MFVH
zoning district with an MUP.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Identifying sites - Ongoing; Development Code Amendments – Within two
years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Increased housing opportunities for seniors and other special needs
groups
Quantified Objective: Five extremely low and 10 very low-income units
I.5-1. To encourage farmworker housing, the City will amend the zoning ordinance to identify
farmworker housing as a residential use in the use tables. The City Zoning Ordinance will
be amended to ensure that permit processing procedures for farmworker housing do not
conflict with Health and Safety Code, Section 17021.5, which states that farmworker
housing for six or fewer employees should be “deemed a single-family structure with a
residential land use designation,” and Section 17021.6, which states that for "employee
housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces
designed for use by a single family or household...no CUP, zoning variance, or other zoning
clearance shall be required of employee housing of this employee housing that is not
required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone.”
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Increased housing opportunities for farmworkers
Quantified Objective: Five very low-income units
I.5-2. Revise the definition of family in the Development Code to comply with state law.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Clarify state compliant definition of family
Item 9.a. - Page 45
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
28
The Homeless
Goal J– Housing for the Homeless.
Reduce or minimize the incidence of homelessness in the community.
Policies:
J.1. The City shall consider joint powers development and cooperation agreements to
develop homeless shelters and related services or participate in the operations and
maintenance of countywide or south county regional homeless shelter facilities.
J.2. The City shall continue to allow emergency shelters for overnight lodging and other
housing serving homeless persons in appropriate zoning districts, in compliance with
state law.
J.3. The City shall consider supporting overnight parking programs that may be instituted in
a manner that ensures the safety and security of participants and neighboring land
uses.
Programs:
J.1-1. The City shall continue to participate in the South San Luis Obispo County working group
cooperating with other cities, the county, and other agencies in the development of
programs aimed at providing homeless shelters and related services.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development/City Manager
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Continued cooperation in providing homeless shelter and services
J.2-1. The City shall consider implementing an overnight parking program, or a similar program,
for the homeless in appropriate zoning districts.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Provide approved parking locations for the homeless to sleep
J.2-2. Per AB 2162, the City will review its Development Code to ensure compliance with AB 2162
related to allowing supportive housing. The Development Code will be reviewed to assess
whether supportive housing is allowed without discretionary review in all zoning districts
that allow multifamily housing or mixed-use development, including nonresidential zoning
districts, as applicable. If it is determined that the allowed uses in the Development Code
are not in compliance with AB 2162, the City will revise the allowed uses along with
corresponding development standards, as detailed in AB 2162.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development, Planning Commission, City
Council
Item 9.a. - Page 46
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
29
Timeframe: Review Development Code by 2021. Make revisions by 2022.
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Allow supportive housing per state law
J.2-3. As set forth in AB 101 (2019), the City will review its Development Code and make revisions,
if necessary, to allow low-barrier navigation centers for the homeless pursuant to
Government Code Sections 65660–65668.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development, City Council
Timeframe: Review Development Code by 2021. Make revisions by 2022.
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Allow low-barrier navigation centers for homeless per state law
Disabled Persons
Goal K – Housing for Persons with Disabilities.
Ensure that those residents with handicaps or disabilities have adequate access to housing.
Policies:
K.1. The City shall encourage housing development that meets the special needs of
disabled persons, including developmentally disabled individuals, and ensure that all
new multiple-family developments comply with the handicapped provisions of the
California Building Code and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
K.2. The City shall ensure, through the design review process for multiple housing projects,
that project design, parking locations, pedestrian walkways, and direct access to the
housing units accommodates handicapped or disabled access.
Programs:
K.1-1 The City shall explore models to encourage the creation of housing for persons with
disabilities, including developmental disabilities. Such models could include coordinating
with the Tri-County Regional Center and other local agencies in encouraging affordable
housing projects to dedicate a percent of housing for disabled individuals; assisting in
housing development; providing housing services that educate, advocate, inform, and
assist people to locate and maintain housing; and models to assist in the maintenance
and repair of housing for persons with developmental disabilities.
Responsible agency/department: Building Division/Community Development
Timeframe: Establish a model program within two years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Increased access to housing and housing resources for disabled
persons, including information and services available for developmentally disabled
persons
Quantified Objective: Five low-income units
Item 9.a. - Page 47
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
30
K.2-1. The City shall create a policy or amend the Development Code to provide persons with
disabilities seeking equal access to housing an opportunity to request reasonable
accommodation in the application of City building and zoning laws.
Responsible agency/department: Building Division/Community Development
Timeframe: Within one year of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Greater accessibility for disabled persons accommodated through
the design review process for discretionary residential projects
Energy Conservation
Goal L – Energy Conservation.
Increase the efficiency of energy use in new and existing homes, with a concurrent reduction in
housing costs to Arroyo Grande residents.
Policies:
L.1. All new dwelling units shall be required to meet current state and local requirements
for energy efficiency. The retrofitting of existing units shall be encouraged.
L.2. New land use patterns shall encourage energy efficiency.
L.3. When feasible, buildings shall be sited on a north to south axis and designed to take
advantage of passive solar heating and cooling.
Programs:
L.1-1. The City shall continue working to implement water conservation incentive programs,
including the Plumbing Retrofit Program, and energy conservation programs, such as those
described by San Luis Obispo County Energy Watch and others, as applicable.
Responsible agency/department: Building Division/Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund, funds established by utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E)
Expected Outcome: Reduce usage of water and electrical resources
L.1-2. Consistent with Measure E-5 of the City’s Climate Action Plan, the City shall establish a
program to allow residential projects to receive minor exceptions if they meet 25 percent
of items on the Tier 1 list of the California Green Building Code (Title 24) or 15 percent of
items on the Tier 2 list of that code.
Responsible agency/department: Building Division/Community Development
Timeframe: Establish program within two years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Encourage energy efficiency in new residential buildings
Item 9.a. - Page 48
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
31
Equal Opportunity
Goal M – Equal Opportunity and Fair Housing.
Assure access to sound, affordable housing for all persons, regardless of race, religion, age, or sex.
Policies:
M.1. The City declares that all persons, regardless of race, religion, age, or sex, shall have
equal access to sound and affordable housing.
Programs:
M.1-1. The City will continue to promote the enforcement of policies of the State Fair Employment
and Housing Commission and shall resolve housing discrimination complaints through
assistance from HUD, and/or local, regional private fair-housing organizations. The City will
develop a fair-housing program to implement San Luis Obispo County’s Urban County
Team’s fair-housing program, “Fair Housing Analysis of Impediments,” and prepare a
brochure that promotes equal housing opportunities and addresses discrimination. The
brochure will be available at the Community Development Department and a link to
download the brochure will be placed on the City’s website. In addition, the City shall
disseminate information in one or more of the following ways to ensure the public is aware
of Fair Housing Law:
• Distribute materials to property owners and apartment managers twice a year.
• Make public service announcements through multiple media outlets, including
newspaper, radio, television, and social media to run on a regular basis.
• Conduct public presentations with different community groups once or twice a year.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing; Brochure available within one year of Housing Element adoption,
strategy to implement Urban County Team fair housing program within one year of
County Fair Housing Plan adoption.
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Dissemination of information through the City.
M.1-2. Arroyo Grande will develop a plan to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). The AFFH
Plan shall take actions to address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to
opportunity for all persons, regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national
origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8, commencing with Section 12900, of
Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and
planning law. Specific actions will include the following:
• Facilitate public education and outreach by creating informational flyers on fair
housing that will be made available at public counters, libraries, and on the City’s
website. City Council meetings will include a fair housing presentation at least once
per year.
Item 9.a. - Page 49
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
32
• Actively recruit residents from neighborhoods of concentrated poverty (if applicable)
to serve or participate on boards, committees, and other local government bodies.
• Ensure environmental hazards are not disproportionately concentrated in low-income
communities and low-income communities of color.
• Develop a proactive code enforcement program that holds property owners
accountable and proactively plans for resident relocation, when necessary.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Create plan by January 2022 and implement on an ongoing basis.
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Dissemination of information at the City Hall front counter, education
at City Council meetings.
Housing Element Implementation
Goal N – Public Participation.
Ensure participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of housing
policy for Arroyo Grande.
Policies:
N.1. The City shall encourage the participation of all residents of Arroyo Grande in the
development of housing policies for the City.
N.2. The City shall provide a brief summary of key information about housing-related issues
to help ensure widespread notice to all residents.
Programs:
N.1-1. Prior to any public hearing where the City is considering amending or updating its Housing
Element or housing policies, the City will notify all local housing organizations, as well as
social service agencies, and post notices at locations frequented by the public.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Provide information about housing programs
Item 9.a. - Page 50
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
33
2.2 Summary of Quantified Objectives
Quantified objectives estimate the number of units that are planned to be constructed,
rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period. This information is presented in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 Quantified Objectives by Income Group
Housing Program
Quantified Objectives by Income Group
Total Extremely
Low-
Income
Very Low-
Income
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
New Housing Production
Program A.1-1. 8 27 63 0 0 98
Program A.1-2. 0 0 0 10 10 20
Program A.2-1. 0 0 120 116 0 236
Program A.3-1. 0 5 5 0 0 10
Program A.3-2. 2 0 0 0 0 2
Program A.10-1. 10 10 0 0 0 20
Program A.12-1. 85 85 107 124 291 692
Program C.1-1. 3 3 20 0 0 26
Program C.4-2. 0 5 0 0 0 5
Program E.1-1. 2 5 10 15 0 32
Program F.1-2. 2 5 8 0 0 15
Program I.1-1. 5 10 0 0 0 15
Program I.5-1. 0 5 0 0 0 5
Program K.1-1. 0 5 0 0 0 5
Subtotals 117 165 333 265 301 1,181
Preservation
Program H.1-1 0 10 20 0 0 30
Subtotals 0 10 20 0 0 30
Rehabilitation
Program G.1-2 0 0 5 0 0 5
Subtotals 0 0 5 0 0 5
Totals 117 175 358 225 301 1,216
Source: City of Arroyo Grande and California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC), 2020.
Item 9.a. - Page 51
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
34
Item 9.a. - Page 52
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
35
CHAPTER 3 – BACKGROUND INFORMATION
3.1 Introduction
The City of Arroyo Grande occupies 5.45 square miles (3,388 acres) of land along U.S. Highway
101 in southwestern San Luis Obispo County, as shown on Figure 3-1. It is immediately adjacent to
the west, southwest, and south to urban development within the cities of Pismo Beach and Grover
Beach, and the unincorporated community of Oceano, as shown on Figure 3-2. Unincorporated
lands adjoin the City to the north, east, and south. Residential rural and suburban developments
characterize unincorporated areas to the north and southeast of the City, while agricultural uses
dominate the Arroyo Grande Valley to the northeast and the Cienega Valley south of the City.
Arroyo Grande Creek runs in a generally north to south direction through the eastern portion of
the City. This chapter presents and analyzes demographic, population, and housing
characteristics that are crucial to understanding the local housing market and needs and to plan
for different housing types for all income levels.
Item 9.a. - Page 53
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
36
Figure 3-1 Regional Location Map
Item 9.a. - Page 54
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
37
Figure 3-2 South County Location Map
Item 9.a. - Page 55
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
38
3.2 Demographic Overview
This section provides information on population trends (population growth, ethnicity, age, and
sex); household data (size, tenure, and type of household); income; and employment.
Population Trends
Population Growth. The City of Arroyo Grande’s population has grown from 3,291 in 1960 to 17,876
in 2019 according to the U.S. Census and California Department of Finance (DOF). Population
growth during the 1960s occurred rapidly, some years exceeding 12 percent. In the 1970s, growth
slowed to an average of seven percent over the decade, falling still further in the 1980s to less
than two percent from 1980 to 1990. According to the U.S. Census, Arroyo Grande grew 10.2
percent between 1990 and 2000 and 8.8 percent between 2000 and 2010. Table 3-1 compares
population growth in Arroyo Grande from 2010 to 2019 relative to Pismo Beach, Grover Beach,
the County of San Luis Obispo, and the State of California. This table indicates that the growth that
occurred in Arroyo Grande from 2010 to 2019 was higher than Grover Beach and comparable to
the County, but less than Pismo Beach or the State of California.
Table 3-1 Trends in Population Growth
2000 2010 2019
Number Number Change from
2000 Number Change from
2010
Arroyo Grande 15,851 17,252 8.80% 17,876 3.62%
Grover Beach 13,067 13,156 0.70% 13,533 2.87%
Pismo Beach 8,551 7,655 -10.50% 8,239 7.63%
San Luis Obispo County 246,681 269,637 9.30% 280,393 3.99%
California 33,871,648 37,253,956 10.00% 39,927,315 7.18%
Source: U.S. Census 2000, State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and
the State, 2011-2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark
Current estimates by SLOCOG in their 2050 Regional Growth Forecast (2017) project the City’s
population to reach approximately 20,449 residents by 2050, based upon a compound annual
growth rate of 0.39 percent (see Table 3-2).
Table 3-2 Population Growth Projections
2020 2030 2040 2050 % Annual Change
Arroyo Grande 18,288 19,505 20,158 20,449 0.39%
Grover Beach 13,751 14,536 14,934 15,091 0.32%
Pismo Beach 8,642 9,486 9,901 10,079 0.55%
San Luis Obispo County 286,657 305,692 315,922 320,482 0.39%
Source: SLOCOG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, Population Projections by Jurisdiction, 2010 to 2050 (Medium Scenario)
Age and Sex Distribution. Table 3-3 shows that in 2017, 27 percent of the population of Arroyo
Grande was age 24 years and under, 34 percent of the population was between 25 and 54 years,
and 40 percent was 55 years or older. The highest percentage in one age category, 23 percent,
is in the 65 and older age range, followed by the 55 to 64 age range (17 percent). The median
age in years is 48. These statistics reflect an older population than California as a whole, with a
Item 9.a. - Page 56
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
39
higher percentage of those considered seniors (55 or over). However, this is similar to trends in San
Luis Obispo County as a whole, with the senior population increasing more rapidly than other age
groups.
Table 3-3 Trends in Population Age
Age Group
2010 2017
Percent Change Number of
Persons
Percent of
Total
Number of
Persons
Percent of
Total
<15 2,933 17% 2,603 14% -11%
15–24 1,893 11% 2,269 13% 20%
25–34 1,755 10% 1,364 8% -22%
35–44 1,949 11% 2,268 13% 16%
45–54 2,657 15% 2,320 13% -13%
55–64 2,572 15% 3,015 17% 17%
65+ 3,493 20% 4,132 23% 18%
Total 17,252 100% 17,971 100% 4%
Source: U.S. Census 2010 and ACS 2013–2017
Between 2010 and 2017, there were increases in the age ranges 55 and older and between 15
and 24 years, and a large decrease in the 25 to 34 age range, while all other age ranges remained
similar. These trends can be seen in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3 Change in Population Age, 2010 to 2017
Source: U.S. Census 2010 and 2017
Race and Ethnicity. Table 3-4 reports the race and ethnicity of the demographics in the City of
Arroyo Grande. The residents of the City of Arroyo Grande are majority white, with 85.4 percent of
the population identifying this way in 2018. Approximately 17 percent of the population in the City
identify as Hispanic or Latinx. The questions posed by the Census regarding race and ethnicity
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
<15 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
2010 2017
Item 9.a. - Page 57
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
40
provide the opportunity for respondents to self-identify with a sub-group within the racial and
ethnic categories; 66.5 percent of respondents who identified as Hispanic or Latinx also identified
as White. Over four percent of the population identifies as Asian, almost four percent identifies as
two or more races, and over three percent identifies as some other race. All other subgroups
comprised less than two percent of the population.
Table 3-4 Race and Ethnicity
Race or Ethnicity Number of Persons Percent of Total
White 15,411 85%
Black or African American 142 1%
American Indian and Alaska Native 271 2%
Asian 814 5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 122 1%
Two or more races 659 4%
Some other race 620 3%
Hispanic or Latino1 3,061 17%
Total 18,039 100%
1 Hispanic or Latino (or Latinx) category is counted separately and in addition to other categories.
Source: ACS 2014–2018
Household Data
Household Projections. According to SLOCOG’s Regional Growth Forecast, Arroyo Grande is
expected to grow from 7,087 households in 2010 to 8,460 households in 2050, reflecting a 0.5-
percent annual increase in households. In comparison, Grover Beach is anticipated to grow at a
slightly slower rate of 0.4 percent per year, while Pismo Beach will grow faster at 0.6 percent per
year. All these rates are quite gradual. The County’s number of households is expected to grow
at nearly the same rate as the City of Arroyo Grande through 2050, as shown in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5 Trends in Household Growth
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 % Annual
Change
Arroyo Grande 7,087 7,493 8,064 8,349 8,460 0.48%
Grover Beach 5,111 5,327 5,689 5,878 5,963 0.42%
Pismo Beach 3,834 4,250 4,582 4,742 4,805 0.63%
San Luis Obispo County 102,016 108,169 116,112 120,215 121,826 0.49%
Source: SLOCOG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast
Item 9.a. - Page 58
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
41
Household Size. According to the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS), the average
household size in Arroyo Grande is 2.47 persons. The City’s average household size increased
slightly from 2.41 to 2.47 between 2010 and 2017.
Tenure by Household. Table 3-6 shows the occupancy of housing units in Arroyo Grande. Overall,
70 percent of households are owner-occupied, and 30 percent rent. In comparison, about 60
percent of households are owner-occupied countywide, while the remaining 40 percent of
households are renter-occupied.
Table 3-6 Household Tenure
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Totals
Number Percent Number Percent Number
Arroyo Grande 5,023 70% 2,169 30% 7,192
Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, 2013-2017 ACS, Table B25003
Income
Table 3-7 shows income ranges and the number of households in each range in Arroyo Grande.
According to U.S. Census, the median income for Arroyo Grande households was $80,615 in 2018.
This is compared to the 2010 median household income of $58,725 in Table 3-6. The largest
category that renter-occupied households in Arroyo Grande fell into in 2018 was the $50,000 to
$74,999 range (7 percent of total renter households). The largest category in 2018 for owner-
occupied households was the $100,000 or more range (35 percent of total owner households).
Item 9.a. - Page 59
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
42
Table 3-7 Trends in Household Income
2010 2018 Percent
Change in
No. of
Households Households Percent Households Percent
Renter-Occupied
Less than $10,000 136 2% 52 1% -61.8%
$10,000 to $14,999 218 3% 141 2% -35.3%
$15,000 to $24,999 293 4% 325 5% 10.9%
$25,000 to $34,999 328 5% 174 2% -47.0%
$35,000 to $49,999 358 5% 309 4% -13.7%
$50,000 to $74,999 472 7% 500 7% 5.9%
$75,000 to $99,999 182 3% 297 4% 63.2%
$100,000 or more 131 2% 411 6% 213.7%
Owner-Occupied
Less than $10,000 122 2% 143 2% 17.2%
$10,000 to $14,999 189 3% 133 2% -29.6%
$15,000 to $24,999 277 4% 309 4% 11.6%
$25,000 to $34,999 385 5% 213 3% -44.7%
$35,000 to $49,999 668 9% 336 5% -49.7%
$50,000 to $74,999 862 12% 596 9% -30.9%
$75,000 to $99,999 814 12% 612 9% -24.8%
$100,000 or more 1,616 23% 2,448 35% 51.5%
Total Households 7,051 100% 6,999 100% —
Median Income (All Households) $58,725 — $80,615 — —
Source: U.S. Census 2010; ACS 2014–2018, Table B25118
Employment
Table 3-8 compares employment growth estimates from SLOCOG in their 2050 Regional Growth
Forecast (2017) in Arroyo Grande from 2020 to 2050 to Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and the
County of San Luis Obispo. The City’s employment is anticipated to grow to approximately 7,913
employees by 2050, based upon a compound annual growth rate of 1.27 percent. This table
indicates that the job growth that will occur in Arroyo Grande from 2020 to 2050 will be higher than
Grover Beach and the County and greater than but comparable to Pismo Beach.
Table 3-8 Employment Growth Projections
2020 2030 2040 2050 % Annual Change
Arroyo Grande 6,822 7,364 7,705 7,913 1.27%
Grover Beach 3,109 3,355 3,509 3,604 0.55%
Pismo Beach 4,919 5,309 5,555 5,705 1.07%
San Luis Obispo County 115,842 125,054 130,837 134,375 0.86%
Source: SLOCOG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast
Item 9.a. - Page 60
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
43
According to the 2018 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey for the region,
employment in a wide range of industries are anticipated to grow through 2026. However, this
data was gathered prior to the impacts to the economy due to COVID-19 and does not take the
COVID-19 pandemic into account. In Table 3-9, home health aides and market research analysts
or marketing specialists are expected to grow the most, increasing by 47 and 45 percent,
respectively. Most of these professions have relatively high median hourly wages, given that the
minimum wage in California is $12 as of 2020. Veterinary assistants or lab animal caretakers and
nonfarm animal caretakers had the lowest median hourly wage, both earning under $15 per hour.
Table 3-9 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande Metropolitan Statistical Area
Projections of Employment
Occupation 2019 Median
Hourly Wage
2019 Median
Annual Salary
Estimated Employment Percent
Change 2016 2026
Software Developers,
Systems Software $43.77 $91,048 360 490 36%
Cost Estimators $38.37 $79,817 220 270 23%
Electricians $34.23 $71,207 620 800 29%
Market Research Analysts
and Marketing Specialists $30.20 $62,814 420 610 45%
Heavy and Tractor-Trailer
Truck Drivers $24.75 $51,474 670 790 18%
Construction Laborers $22.14 $46,057 1,210 1,590 31%
Medical Secretaries $20.19 $41,996 500 670 34%
Home Health Aides $16.37 $34,038 170 250 47%
Veterinary Assistants and Lab
Animal Caretakers $14.83 $30,839 240 320 33%
Nonfarm Animal Caretakers $14.46 $30,075 270 360 33%
Source: U.S. Department of Labor's Employment Cost Index, 2018 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey
Data from the California Employment Development Department shown in Table 3-10 shows the
largest employers in San Luis Obispo County, including the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital
located in the City. All other major companies are located elsewhere in the county, and many
residents may commute out of Arroyo Grande for work at one of these other employers. Major
employers in the county are medical offices, schools, and regional or federal government offices.
Additionally, using ACS data, Table 3-11 shows the number of jobs within the City by industry
category. The City’s largest industry is the educational services and health care sector, consisting
of 1,897 jobs, or 22 percent. Following that is the arts, entertainment, and recreation, and
accommodation and food services sector supplying 14 percent of the jobs in the City.
Item 9.a. - Page 61
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
44
Table 3-10 Largest Employers
Employer Name Location Industry Number of Employees
Arroyo Grande Community Hospital Arroyo Grande Hospitals 1,000 -- 4,999
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Avila Beach
and San Luis
Obispo
Electric Companies 1,000 -- 4,999
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Schools -- Universities
& Colleges Academic 1,000 -- 4,999
San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo Government Offices --
County 1,000 -- 4,999
California Men's Colony San Luis Obispo Correctional Facility --
State 1,000 -- 4,999
AMI Sierra Vista Radiology San Luis Obispo Physicians & Surgeons 500 -- 999
Medi-Cal San Luis Obispo Government Offices --
County 500 -- 999
Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center San Luis Obispo Hospitals 500 -- 999
Cuesta College
San Luis Obispo
and Paso
Robles
Schools -- Universities
& Colleges Academic 500 -- 999
County Office of Education San Luis Obispo Schools 250 -- 499
French Hospital Medical Center San Luis Obispo Hospitals 250 -- 499
San Luis Obispo Sheriff's Department San Luis Obispo Sheriff 250 -- 499
Source: EDD, America's Labor Market Information System (ALMIS) Employer Database, 2016 1st edition, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce website -- Pacific Coast Business Times 2017
Table 3-11 Industry Profile
Jobs Percent
Educational services, and health care and social assistance 1,897 22.35%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 1,177 13.87%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste
management services 992 11.69%
Retail trade 823 9.70%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 667 7.86%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 609 7.18%
Construction 571 6.73%
Public administration 563 6.63%
Manufacturing 498 5.87%
Other services, except public administration 350 4.12%
Wholesale trade 164 1.93%
Information 101 1.19%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting, and mining 74 0.87%
Total 8,486 100.00%
Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, 2013-2017 ACS, Table DP-03
Item 9.a. - Page 62
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
45
Another issue related to employment and residency is the matter of commuting to work. U.S.
Census data indicates that of the estimated 8,386 workers 16 years and over, 6,542, or 78 percent,
drove alone to work. Only 42 employees, or 0.5 percent, used public transportation. The mean
travel time to work was 21.5 minutes (see Table 3-12). This would indicate that most of the City’s
working residents are commuting to jobs outside of Arroyo Grande.
Table 3-12 Commute Patterns
Travel Time to Work Percentage
Less than 15 minutes 33%
15 to 29 minutes 47%
30 to 59 minutes 17%
60 or more minutes 4%
Average Travel Time (minutes) 21.5
Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Table S0801
3.3 Housing Characteristics
This section provides information on types of housing, vacancy rates, overcrowding, age of units,
and housing conditions.
Types of Housing
Table 3-13 provides a breakdown of the total housing units by type of structure for 2010 and 2019.
In 2019, it was estimated that there were 7,853 housing units in the City, an increase of 225 housing
units from 2010. This was a 77-percent decrease from the number of housing units added from
2000 to 2010 (963-unit increase). As indicated, most of the units (68 percent) in Arroyo Grande are
single-family units.
Table 3-13 Trends in Housing Type
2010 2019
Number Percent Number Percent
Total Housing Units 7,628 100% 7,853 100%
Units in Structure
1-unit, detached 5,201 68% 5,358 68%
1-unit, attached 627 8% 648 8%
Multiple-Family 2–4 Units 360 5% 366 5%
Multiple-Family 5 + Units 845 11% 886 11%
Mobile home or Other 595 8% 595 8%
Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet: California DOF E-5 Estimates 2019
Item 9.a. - Page 63
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
46
Vacancy Rates
The U.S. Census reported 673 vacant units in 2017, which is nine percent of the total housing units
in the City. The number of vacant units in the City has increased from the 541 vacant units reported
in 2010. As shown in Table 3-14, almost two-thirds of the vacant units are for seasonal, recreational,
or occasional use. Table 3-14 shows that 21 percent of the vacant units are vacant for reasons
other than being available for rent or sale, rented but not occupied, and sold but not occupied.
These figures should not be confused with the reported vacancy rates of the City, which represents
the proportion of vacant rental inventory to the sum of renter- or owner-occupied units, year-
round units awaiting occupancy, and the vacant year-round units for rent.
Table 3-14 Vacant Units by Type, 2017
Number Percent
For rent 37 5%
For sale only 28 4%
Rented, not occupied 0 0%
Sold, not occupied 43 6%
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 426 63%
Other vacant 139 21%
Total Vacant Units 673 100%
Source: 6th Cycle HCD Data Packet, 2013-2017 ACS, Table B25002
Vacancy rates are commonly used as an indicator of housing market activity in a given area. The
individual vacancy rate for a community theoretically measures the health of the local housing
market. The vacancy rate is a percentage of the total housing stock that is vacant and/or
available for sale or rent at any one time. Generally, a two-percent vacancy rate in units available
for owner-occupancy and a six-percent rate for rental units are considered desirable to keep
prices down and to ensure that units are available to new and relocating residents.
Vacancy rates for 2010 and 2017 are shown in Table 3-15. Vacancy rates are calculated by
dividing the total vacant year-round units by the sum of occupied units, vacant year-round units
that are awaiting occupancy, and vacant year-round units. For Arroyo Grande in 2017, it was
reported that there was a 0.5-percent vacancy rate for owner-occupied units and a 4.2-percent
vacancy rate for rental units. In 2010, the vacancy rate was 1.9 percent for owner-occupied units
and 4.0-percent for rental units. The 2017 vacancy rate for owner-occupied units is lower than the
optimal rate described above, and the vacancy rate for rental units is also less than the optimal
rate. This indicates a shortage of both owner-occupied units and rental housing units in the city.
However, this is not an uncommon statistic in the south San Luis Obispo County area; Neighboring
Grover Beach has an overall total unit vacancy rate of three percent and San Luis Obispo County,
just less than three percent.
Item 9.a. - Page 64
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
47
Table 3-15 Vacancy Rates
2010 2017 Optimal Vacancy Rates
Owner-occupied 1.9% 0.5% 2.0%
Rental Units 4.0% 4.2% 6.0%
Overall Total Unit Vacancy 7.0% 4.7% --
Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, 2013-2017 ACS, Table B25002
Overcrowded Units
A common method of measuring overcrowding in housing is to compare the number of persons
to the number of rooms in the unit. The U.S. Census defines an overcrowded household as one
that has more than 1.01 persons per room (not including kitchens and bathrooms), while units with
more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. In Arroyo Grande, the
data collected from the 2013–2017 ACS shows that three percent of all occupied units were
overcrowded. As shown in Table 3-16, U.S. Census data indicates 139 units or 1.9 percent of the
total occupied housing units had been between 1.01 and 1.50 occupants per room, and 81 units,
or 1.1 percent, of all units were severely overcrowded at 1.51 occupants or more per room.
Table 3-16 Overcrowding by Tenure
Occupants Per
Room
Owner-Occupied Renter Occupied Total
Number of
Households Percent Number of
Households Percent Number of
Households Percent
1.00 or less 4,945 98.5% 2,027 91.8% 6,972 96.4%
1.01 – 1.50 32 0.6% 107 4.8% 139 1.9%
1.51 or more 46 0.9% 35 1.6% 81 1.1%
Total 5,023 100.0% 2,209 100.0% 7,232 100.0%
Source: ACS 2013–2017
The rate of overcrowding in the City is lower than San Luis Obispo County as a whole, which has
a 3.4-percent overcrowding rate (more than 1.01 persons per room).
While the rate may in comparison be lower than many other communities, the incidence of
overcrowding (220 units) should still be considered. The problem of overcrowding for large families
can be addressed by the construction of more affordable larger units. However, overcrowding
goes beyond family size to affordability issues. Even single individuals and small families may be
affected by overcrowding. Due to limited incomes and high housing costs and rents, individuals
and families may be forced to double up with extended family members or non-relatives in similar
circumstances.
Overcrowding will be addressed by promotion and production of more affordable units in the City
and regional cooperation on housing issues.
Age of Housing Units
The age of housing is an important characteristic of its relative condition as older units tend to be
in greater need of repair. Many federal and state programs use age of housing to determine
Item 9.a. - Page 65
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
48
potential housing rehabilitation needs. Typically, the useful life of major components of an
average quality housing structure ranges from 20 to 30 years for items such as roofing, plumbing,
landscaping, paving, and electrical. When a housing unit is over 30 years old, the replacement or
refurbishing of major components is an important factor in the ability of a community to provide
safe, decent, and sanitary housing.
Table 3-17 provides a breakdown of the age of housing units in Arroyo Grande through 2019. In
reviewing this table, the largest percentage of the housing units was constructed between 1970
and 1979 (24.9 percent), followed by units built from 1980 to 1989 (18.4 percent). This suggests that
nearly 84 percent of the housing stock is 20 years or older, while 72 percent is 30 years or older. The
table indicates that 293 units were built prior to 1940. However, according to a survey of the
housing stock, most of the City’s housing is in sound condition (see next section).
Table 3-17 Year Structure Built
Year Structure Built Number Percent
2016 to 2019 161 2.0%
2005 to 2015 358 4.5%
2000 to 2004 776 9.8%
1990 to 1999 886 11.2%
1980 to 1989 1,457 18.4%
1970 to 1979 1,974 24.9%
1960 to 1969 843 10.6%
1950 to 1959 898 11.3%
1940 to 1949 284 3.6%
1939 or earlier 293 3.7%
Total 7,930 100%
Source: U.S. Census 2010; City of Arroyo Grande 2020.
Condition of Units
One of the issues required by state housing element law for discussion and analysis is the condition
of the community’s housing stock. The purpose for this is to provide a basis for determining which
units need rehabilitation and which units may be beyond feasible repair and determined to need
demolition and replacement. One of the guidelines set by the state is that units constructed
before 1960 may be eligible for repair and/or rehabilitation to keep those units in the existing
housing stock. To maintain the historical nature of the community, many older communities like
Arroyo Grande have already repaired and/or rehabilitated many of their older units.
Based upon the review of Table 3-17, 1,475 or 19 percent of the total housing units in the City were
built prior to 1960. While these numbers could represent an estimate of the number of housing units
that could be analyzed for rehabilitation need, the 1993 Housing Element survey was conducted
to determine the structural condition of housing in Arroyo Grande. The structural condition of
housing units was reported as “sound,” in need of “minor rehabilitation,” “moderate
rehabilitation,” “substantial rehabilitation,” or “dilapidated.” The survey used a point system to
evaluate the housing units in the City. The result of this survey was that 99.3 percent of the 1993
housing units were in “sound” condition, 0.4 percent or 26 units were in need of “minor
Item 9.a. - Page 66
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
49
rehabilitation,” 0.3 percent or 13 units were in need of “moderate rehabilitation” and one unit was
in need of “substantial rehabilitation.” No units were determined to be dilapidated. The survey
concluded that virtually all housing units were in sound condition and the overall appearance of
the City is of well-maintained homes. To update the findings of the 1993 housing survey, City staff
conducted a windshield survey of housing units in the older neighborhoods where housing
conditions may be an issue. The survey located less than 10 units that appear to need substantial
rehabilitation or removal. Sixteen units that were deemed to be in dilapidated condition were
demolished during the period of June 30, 2003, and June 30, 2007. The City has not identified any
additional units in need of demolition.
During the previous 2014-2019 planning period, 10 code enforcement cases related to
substandard housing were opened. All cases have since been resolved. Generally the condition
of the housing in Arroyo Grande has improved since 2014 because home values have gone up,
allowing people to obtain funding for improvements, and the majority of the building permits the
City has processed since 2014 are homeowners re-investing in their homes, including small
expansions and remodels of existing homes. In addition, the City’s code enforcement and building
inspection staff note health and safety issues that they observe when out in the field on a call and
provide property owners with resources that can assist with necessary repairs/corrections.
3.4 Housing Affordability
One of the key issues facing the provision of housing in the state is affordability. The ability to
acquire safe and sound housing is a major social and economic issue. It continues to affect
decisions regarding business retention and expansion, commuting distances for employees, as
well as the overall quality of life. The housing affordability issue is further complicated by the limited
financial and other resources available to mitigate the current housing situation.
The primary issue of housing affordability on the Central Coast is the relationship between
household income and the cost of housing. This section covers housing prices, rental rates,
affordability thresholds, overpayment, and long-term affordability issues.
Housing Prices
According to the San Luis Obispo Association of Realtors as published in SLO LIFE Magazine, the
median value of a home in 2019 in San Luis Obispo County was $720,972 and $882,000 for Arroyo
Grande. Median means a point where 50 percent of housing prices are below the listed number
and 50 percent are above. Housing prices in 2019 in Arroyo Grande were 15 percent higher than
in 2018. Housing prices in Arroyo Grande are higher than in the County, as shown in Figure 3-4.
Item 9.a. - Page 67
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
50
Figure 3-4 Median Home Prices Trend, Arroyo Grande and County
Source: SLO Life Magazine 2019 - SLO Association of Realtors
Rental Unit Rates
According to Zillow, the median rent in Arroyo Grande was $2,400 per month in March 2020.
Market rental rates were gathered using Zillow, an online real estate and rental marketplace, on
March 5, 2020. Table 3-18 shows the average market rental rates for each type of unit.
Table 3-18 Market Rental Rates by Unit Type
Average Median Lowest Highest
1 Bedroom $1,532 $1,600 $1,295 $1,700
2 Bedroom $1,933 $1,945 $1,410 $2,800
3 Bedroom $2,836 $2,700 $2,250 $3,900
4 Bedroom $2,835 $2,973 $1,995 $3,400
5 Bedroom 1 $2,995
Total $2,440 $2,400 $1,295 $3,900
1 There was only one unit at this size available on Zillow at the time of the survey.
Source: Zillow, retrieved March 5, 2020
While this rental analysis involves a limited number of housing units that were available for rent at
the time of the point-in-time survey (the number of units listed in each category ranges from 1 to
13), the data does give a perspective on rents being published in Arroyo Grande. Market rental
rates varied for apartments and single-family residences. The lowest rent found for a unit was
$1,295, while the highest was $3,900. Three and four-bedroom units had a higher average rental
cost than one- and two-bedroom units. While the five-bedroom average rent was lower, there
was only one unit available on Zillow, which may account for the skewed price.
$600,000
$650,000
$700,000
$750,000
$800,000
$850,000
$900,000
2018 2019
Arroyo Grande SLO County
Item 9.a. - Page 68
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
51
Affordability Thresholds
Affordable rental and sales prices for housing were calculated by the County of San Luis Obispo
Planning and Building Department using HCD’s 2020 income limits and are summarized in Table 3-
19.
The median home price in Arroyo Grande in 2019 was reported as $882,000. As can be seen in
Table 3-19, a moderate-income household cannot afford this price. While they may be able to
afford some available rental housing, large households, low-income households, and extremely
low-income households may still have a difficult time finding decent housing.
Overpayment
Another measure of housing affordability is the percentage of income paid for housing. State
housing guidelines consider 30 percent of gross income paid for housing costs as the standard
affordable level and those households paying 30 percent or more as overpayment. According to
the 2015 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 1,570 households or 22 percent of
the owner-occupied units were paying monthly housing costs of 30 percent or more of their
income, as shown in Table 3-20. For renter-occupied housing units, 1,215 households or 17 percent
Table 3-19 San Luis Obispo County Housing Affordability
Studio3 1 Bedroom4 2 Bedroom5 3 Bedroom6 4 Bedroom7
Maximum Affordable Rent1:
Extremely Low-
Income
$510 $583 $655 $728 $786
Very Low-
$849 $970 $1,091 $1,213 $1,310
Low-Income $1,359 $1,553 $1,746 $1,940 $2,096
Moderate $2,044 $2,335 $2,628 $2,919 $3,153
Maximum Affordable Sales Price2:
Extremely Low $56,988 $76,995 $100,885 $124,773 $144,132
Very Low $164,727 $204,681 $234,144 $260,161 $281,081
Low $291,542 $333,113 $374,686 $416,258 $449,784
Moderate $438,520 $501,013 $563,772 $626,264 $676,420
Note: Prices shown are preliminary estimates and may be revised. Actual sales price limits will be determined by the County on a case-by-case basis. Footnotes correspond below:
1. These rent limits are assumed to be 30 percent of the monthly total household income.
2. Assumptions include $500 in monthly expenses, 20-percent down payment, property taxes, and fees, and property insurance and 4.5-percent interest rate., $150/month for HOA dues, Mortgage financing at fixed rate of 4.35% for 30 years (per HSH Associates)
3. Studio assumes one person occupies the unit.
4. One bedroom assumes two people occupy the unit.
5. Two bedroom assumes that three people occupy the unit.
6. Three bedroom assumes that four people occupy the unit.
7. Four bedroom assumes that five people occupy the unit.
Source: HCD 2020, Chase Online Affordability Calculator
Item 9.a. - Page 69
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
52
paid 30 percent or more for rent compared to household income. Lower-income households
often face a greater incidence of housing overpayment, allocating a greater portion of their
income to cover housing costs. Approximately 75 percent of lower-income renters overpay for
housing, and 57 percent of lower-income homeowners overpay for monthly housing costs.
Table 3-20 Total Household Overpayment by Income, 2015
Total Household Characteristics Number Percentage of
Total Households
Total occupied units (households) 7,040 100%
Total renter households 2,355 33%
Total owner households 4,685 67%
Total lower- income (0–80% of HUD Area Median Family Income
(HAMFI)) households 2,880 41%
Lower-income renters 1,510 21%
Lower-income owners 1,370 19%
Extremely low-income renters 315 4%
Extremely low-income owners 355 5%
Lower-income households severely overpaying (paying more than 50%) 1,010 14%
Lower-income renter households severely overpaying 535 8%
Lower-income owner households severely overpaying 475 7%
Extremely low income (ELI) (0–30% of HAMFI) 390 6%
ELI renter households severely overpaying 210 3%
ELI owner households severely overpaying 180 3%
Lower-income households overpaying (paying more than 30%) 1,915 27%
Lower-income renter households overpaying 1,140 16%
Lower-income owner households overpaying 775 11%
Total households overpaying 2,785 39%
Total renter households overpaying 1,215 17%
Total owner households overpaying 1,570 22%
Source: CHAS Databook, 2011–2015
Long-Term Affordability
It is apparent, based on the data that the households that appear to be in the greatest need of
housing assistance are those of low and very low-income.
Affordable housing provided by City incentives is required to be maintained as affordable for a
period of at least 45 (owner-occupied) or 55 years (rental units). The issue of long-term affordability
is a subject of a number of existing programs that ensure that affordable units maintain their status.
Affordability terms are secured by a promissory note and deed of trust, recorded on the property
prior to or concurrent with the initial occupancy (for rental units) or sale of property. The promissory
note is based on the monetary difference between the initial purchase and the initial appraised
value as an “affordability loan” or “silent second” payable to the City. The loan accrues interest
Item 9.a. - Page 70
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
53
at a rate set by the City when the note is executed, amortized over 45 years. Monthly payments
(principal plus interest) on the affordability loan are typically waived as long as eligible residents
continue to own and reside in the property. The City’s established priority has been to maintain
units as affordable. Therefore, they are only allowed to be sold at market value if the seller is
unable to sell to an eligible buyer within a specified time period. In such cases, equity-sharing
provisions are established within the affordable housing agreement whereby the difference
between the affordable and market value is paid to the City to eliminate incentives for conversion
to market-rate units.
3.5 Special Housing Needs Groups
This section reviews the characteristics of households with special housing needs, including elderly
or senior households, families with female heads of households, large family households,
farmworker households, disabled persons/households, and homeless people.
Elderly/Senior Households
An analysis of the needs of elderly or senior households or persons is important for four reasons: (1)
many elderly have fixed, limited incomes; (2) many elderly persons are “over-housed” (living alone
or with two people in a three- or four-bedroom house); (3) some elderly have mobility and health
problems that can create special housing needs; and (4) recent projections indicate an increase
in the elderly population in the planning period, both those currently living in the area or those
that will be relocating to the area (in addition to data showing an increase in seniors during the
previous planning period).
According to the 2013–2017 ACS, there are a total of 5,023 owner-occupied housing units and
2,169 renter-occupied housing units, of which, 2,614 are senior households. Table 3-21 represents
householders by tenure and age in the City of Arroyo Grande.
Table 3-21 Senior Households
Owner Renter Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total 65 and older 2,073 41% 541 25% 2,614 36%
65 to 74 years 1,045 21% 311 14% 1,356 19%
75 to 84 years 736 15% 178 8% 914 13%
85 years and older 292 6% 52 2% 344 5%
Total 64 and under 2,950 59% 1,628 75% 4,578 64%
Total (all ages) 5,023 100% 2,169 100% 7,192 100%
Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, 2013–2017 ACS
Families with Female Heads of Households
State law identifies female-headed households as having special needs due to their income
challenges, childcare expenses, and need for affordable housing. Female-headed households
are households with a female occupant and no partner present. The 2013–2017 ACS reported
that of the total 4,775 households in the City, there were 433 female-headed households. This
represents 9.1 percent of the total households (see Table 3-22). Of these households, 173 or 3.6
Item 9.a. - Page 71
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
54
percent, had children. Based upon the ACS Census data for incomes in 2017, 25 female-headed
households were reported to be below the poverty level.
Table 3-22 Housing Problems for Female head of Households
2017
Number Percent
Total households1 4,775 100.0%
Total female-headed households 433 9.1%
Female Household Heads with Children 173 3.6%
Female Household Heads without Children 260 5.4%
Female Headed Householders Below the Poverty Level 25 0.5%
Total Families Below the Poverty Level 192 4.0%
1 Note that this total householder count is smaller than the total household count presented elsewhere in this Housing Element. This is the total presented by the Census in the data packet as approved by HCD and therefore, considered accurate for this table.
Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, ACS 2013–2017
Large Families/Households
Large households are those consisting of five or more persons. Large families can have special
housing needs if they cannot find affordable large housing units. In that case, their living conditions
may become overcrowded. Table 3-23 shows the total occupied housing units by the number of
persons living within each unit. This information is shown for owner-occupied and rental housing.
The highest percentage of owner-occupied housing units is for a two- to four-person unit (69
percent). About eight percent of the owner-occupied households are occupied by five or more
persons. For renter-occupied units, one-person households and two- to four-person households
are equally common, accounting for 45 percent of all households, each. About 10 percent of the
renter-occupied units are occupied by five or more persons. These numbers are generally low
compared to the county as a whole.
Table 3-23 Tenure by Household Size
Owner-Occupied Housing Units Renter-Occupied Housing Units
Number Percent Number Percent
1-person household 1,171 23% 866 45%
2- to 4-person household 3,456 69% 882 45%
5- or more person household 396 8% 197 10%
Total 5,023 100% 1,945 100%
Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, 2013–2017 ACS, Table B25009
Item 9.a. - Page 72
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
55
Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low-Income Households
Lower-income households (earning 80 percent or less of median household income) generally
have a higher incidence of housing problems. Extremely low-income households earn 30 percent
or less of the median household income. As of 2016, approximately 21 percent of Arroyo Grande
households (1,535 households) had extremely or very low incomes.
A continuing priority of communities is maintaining quality of life. A key measure of quality of life is
the extent of housing problems. According to the federal government, the term “housing
problems” refers to overpayment, overcrowding, and when residential units lack sufficient kitchens
or plumbing. The CHAS was developed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to assist jurisdictions in writing their HUD-required consolidated plans. The
CHAS data provides information about housing problems in Arroyo Grande. According to this
data (Table 3-24), 72 percent of extremely or very low-income renter households had housing
problems. In comparison, 56 percent of extremely or very low-income owner households had
housing problems.
Table 3-24 Housing Problems for Lower-Income Households
Renters Owners Total
Household Income <= 30% HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) with
any housing problem 245 260 505
Household Income > 30% to <= 50% HAMFI (Very Low-Income) 330 155 485
Percentage of households (<= 50% HAMFI) with any housing problem 72% 56% 64%
Source: CHAS 2012–2016
Between December 31, 2018, and December 31, 2028, the RHNA estimate for very low-income
housing need in Arroyo Grande is 170 housing units. Based on HCD standards, 50 percent of these
should be planned for extremely low-income households. Therefore, it is projected that an
additional 85 extremely low-income households will be added to the City.
Farmworker Households
According to the 2017 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Census, there are 11,416
workers in San Luis Obispo County hired on farms. Farmworkers are classified into permanent
farmworkers working 150 days or more, seasonal farmworkers working less than 150 days and
earning at least half of their annual income from farming, and migrant farmworkers who have
seasonal tenure and travel great distances for work. Generally, farmworker earnings are lower
than other measures of income adequacy such as the California Self Sufficiency Standard and
about the same as the federal poverty guidelines for a family of four. There is also a need for many
more units of farmworker housing in California both to maintain the current level of farmworkers
and their families living in subsidized housing and a much larger number to alleviate the high levels
of existing overcrowding in farmworker households. Given the location and environment of Arroyo
Grande near active agricultural areas, it is assumed that there is a need for farmworker housing
within the City. There are 588 farms in the county. There are 8,681 farmworkers who work fewer
than 150 days. The percent of resident versus migrant workers in this area is unknown.
HCD reports that there are 83 farmworker housing units provided under farmworker grant
programs in the county. Of the farmworkers living in the four farmworker employee housing
Item 9.a. - Page 73
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
56
facilities, 79 are permanent farmworkers and 16 are seasonal. Studies continue to indicate that
most farmworkers live in substandard conditions. The major issue for resident farmworkers is that
they are generally low income and thus have to compete for housing with other lower-income
residents. The issue for many migrant workers is that farm employers are not required to provide
housing. As a result many farmworkers and their families must find their own housing, which
sometimes leads to workers living in their cars or in illegal units. The greatest need for migrant
workers is temporary seasonal housing. This could be in the form of bunk houses on the property
where the workers are employed. In summary, farmworkers generally earn low incomes, live in
overcrowded units, and pay a disproportionate share of income for housing. The City is in
compliance with the state Employee Housing Act that addresses housing for agricultural workers
(Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6).
Persons with Disabilities
The 2013–2017 ACS recorded the disability status of the civilian non-institutional population of City
residents. Approximately 19 percent of residents in the City reported having a disability. The age
breakdown can be seen in Table 3-25, showing that the largest percentage (60.4 percent) of the
disabilities are reported by those 65 years of age or older. The two most common disabilities in that
age range are ambulatory difficulty (32.1 percent) and hearing difficulty (31.1 percent). Cognitive
difficulty is the most common disability reported by people between ages 5 and 64 years old,
reported in 17.5 percent of all disabled people in the City.
Table 3-25 Persons with a Disability by Disability Type
2017
Number Percent
Total disabled persons from survey data 1,996 100.0%
Disability types for people Ages 5-64 (note: some people have more
than one disability type) 791 39.6%
Hearing Difficulty 167 8.4%
Vision Difficulty 157 7.9%
Cognitive Difficulty 349 17.5%
Ambulatory Difficulty 249 12.5%
Self-Care Difficulty 128 6.4%
Independent Living Difficulty 210 10.5%
Disability types for people Ages 65 and Over (note: some people
have more than one disability type) 1,205 60.4%
Hearing Difficulty 620 31.1%
Vision Difficulty 89 4.5%
Cognitive Difficulty 168 8.4%
Ambulatory Difficulty 641 32.1%
Self-Care Difficulty 125 6.3%
Independent Living Difficulty 281 14.1%
Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, ACS 2013–2017
Item 9.a. - Page 74
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
57
There are two major housing related problems facing persons with a disability: the need for housing
that meets particular physical needs (e.g., wheelchair accessibility, etc.) and monetary needs.
Because of limited job opportunities, many persons with disabilities have incomes below the
median. Table 3-26 identifies the employment status of disabled persons in the city. About 22
percent of the population is not in the labor force, of which, about a quarter report having a
disability.
Table 3-26 Persons with a Disability by Employment Status, 2013-2017
2017
Number Percent
Total Population Ages 18 to 64 10,458 100.0%
In the labor force 8,161 78.0%
Employed 7,800 74.6%
With a disability 224 2.1%
No disability 7,576 72.4%
Unemployed 361 3.5%
With a disability 11 0.1%
No disability 350 3.3%
Not in the labor force 2,297 22.0%
With a disability 529 5.1%
No disability 1,768 16.9%
Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, ACS 2013–2017
Persons with disabilities living in Arroyo Grande may have varying housing needs depending on
the nature and severity of their disability. Persons with physical disabilities generally require
modifications to housing units, such as wheelchair ramps, elevators, wide doorways, accessible
cabinetry, modified fixtures and appliances. If the disability prevents the person from operating a
vehicle, then proximity to services and access to public transportation are important.
If the disability prevents the person from working or limits their income, then the cost of housing
and needed modifications can be significant. Because physical handicaps vary, this group rarely
gravitates toward a single service organization. This makes estimating the number of persons and
specific needs difficult. For example, the physical modification of housing may not be necessary
to accommodate persons with mental disabilities, but such persons will generally require special
services and monetary support. Because jobs and income are often limited for persons with
disabilities, affordable housing is important. Issues related to those with a mental disability would
suggest that there is a need for apartment or other housing complexes that are reserved or
designed to accommodate persons requiring extra assistance. If the person is unable to drive,
access to public transportation is very important.
Although the City has not adopted a reasonable accommodation policy or ordinance for persons
with disabilities, the City has mechanisms that allow for the modification of standards and
retrofitting to increase the suitability of homes to accommodate persons living with special needs,
including those with disabilities. In addition, the City proposes Program K.2-1 to create a
reasonable accommodation procedure for the City.
Item 9.a. - Page 75
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
58
Developmentally Disabled
According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code a “developmental disability” is
defined as a disability that originates before an individual attains age 18 years, continues, or can
be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual,
which includes mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term also includes
disabling conditions found to be closely related to mental retardation or to require treatment
similar to that required for individuals with mental retardation but does not include other
handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.
Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional
housing environment; however, more severely disabled individuals may require a group living
environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an
institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because
developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the
developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an
appropriate level of independence as an adult.
The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) provided community-based services
to about 243,000 persons in 2019 with developmental disabilities and their families through a
statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based
facilities. The Tri-County Regional Center (TCRC) is one of 21 regional centers in California that
provides point of entry to services for people with developmental disabilities in Ventura, Santa
Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. The center is a private, non-profit community agency that
contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental
disabilities and their families. In 2019, TCRC provided services to approximately 11,887 persons in
the Tri-County area. Table 3-27 shows the number of individuals served by TCRC in the 93420 zip
code. While this is the primary zip code for the City, the 93420 zip code includes unincorporated
areas within the County.
Table 3-27 Developmentally Disabled Persons
Location 0–17 years 18+ years Total
93420 101 162 263
Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD DATA Packet, Updated Data Profile 2019
There are a number of housing types appropriate for people living with a development disability:
rent-subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, inclusionary housing, renting
using Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, and HUD housing. Similar to the
needs of disabled residents and households mentioned above, the design of housing-accessibility
modifications, the proximity to services and transit, the availability of group living opportunities,
and consideration of the affordability of housing for people with disabilities living on a fixed income
represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this group.
Incorporating ‘barrier-free’ design in all, new multifamily housing (as required by state and federal
Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled
residents. Table 3-28 provides information about developmentally disabled persons’ places of
residence in Arroyo Grande.
Item 9.a. - Page 76
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
59
Table 3-28 Developmentally Disabled Residents by Residence Type
Community
Care
Home Parent/
Guardian
Independent
Living
Intermediate
Care Facility
Foster/Family
Home Other Total
93420 21 190 23 22 <11 <11 >256
Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD DATA Packet, Updated Data Profile 2019
Local and county programs and services provide housing and living assistance for disabled
residents. Locally, the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo administers the Housing Choice
Voucher program, commonly known as Section 8, which provides long-term rental assistance for
families with children, elderly and disabled individuals, as well as families with members who are
disabled. Currently, the agency provides 194 Section 8 vouchers to low-income households in
Arroyo Grande and maintains a waiting list that is currently closed. Additionally, Transitions-Mental
Health Association (TMHA), a nonprofit organization serving San Luis Obispo County, provides
housing assistance and housing to disabled individuals. HASLO and TMHA have partnered over
the years to provide case management services to homeless/disabled individuals.
To assist in the housing needs for persons with disabilities, the City will continue to implement
program K.1-1 to encourage creation of housing for persons with disabilities. Suggested models
include coordinating housing activities and outreach with TCRC and other local agencies,
encouraging housing providers to designate a portion of new affordable housing developments
for persons with disabilities, especially persons with developmental disabilities, and assisting
individuals in locating and maintaining suitable housing.
Homeless
The 2019 San Luis Obispo County Homeless Census and Survey provided a “point-in-time” survey
of the homeless population in South San Luis Obispo County, which includes the cities and
communities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, Oceano, Arroyo Grande, and Nipomo. The homeless
population in South County represents 14 percent of the total homeless population in the County,
which was reported at 1,483 people. Thirty homeless persons were counted in the City of Arroyo
Grande in 2019. Of the total homeless population in San Luis Obispo County, 99 percent were over
the age of 18.
The primary homeless services organization in the South County is the 5 Cities Homeless Coalition.
The 5 Cities Homeless Coalition does not operate a shelter but provides education, counseling,
and financial support to homeless individuals. Since 1989, the Community Action Partnership of
San Luis Obispo County’s (CAPSLO) Homeless Services program has been working to meet the
needs of the homeless in the County as well, offering emergency housing, on-site information,
referral services, and assistance in finding permanent housing. This organization operates the
Prado Road Campus in San Luis Obispo, which provides 100 beds nightly year-round with
additional services. An additional 25 to 40 beds per night are added through the Interfaith
Coalition for the Homeless, bringing the overflow total to more than 25,000 shelter nights provided
per year. There are several other organizations in the County that provide services and housing
for the homeless, including several churches. Table 3-29 identifies the homeless facilities
throughout the county. There are 354 adult-only beds in the county, which serves the largest group
of homeless people in the county.
Item 9.a. - Page 77
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
60
Table 3-29 Homelessness, San Luis Obispo County
Facility Type Family Units Family Beds Adult-Only Beds Seasonal
Emergency Shelter 18 71 83 124
Transitional Housing 8 42 10 n/a
Permanent Supportive Housing 62 62 230 n/a
Rapid Rehousing 15 15 31 n/a
Total 103 190 354 124
Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD DATA Packet, Updated Data Profile 2019
These resources are provided by the City as well as by the support of the Homeless Services
Oversight Council of San Luis Obispo County. The City declared a homeless shelter crisis in 2018,
citing a lack of homeless shelters in the city and neighboring cities. The City is currently seeking
block grant funding from the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) in partnership with the 5
Cities Homeless Coalition and People’s Self-Help Housing to support construction of an emergency
shelter in neighboring Grover Beach. San Luis Obispo County has also incorporated a 10-year Plan
to End Homelessness that was completed in 2008. This plan includes goals in housing attainability,
ongoing services for the homeless, and prevention action to divert individuals from becoming part
of the cycle of homelessness.
3.6 At-Risk Housing Units
As shown in Table 3-30, Arroyo Grande has seven state and/or federally assisted housing
developments that provide 283 affordable housing units.
Table 3-30 Inventory of Assisted Units
Projects Total Units Affordable
Assisted Units Funding Source Earliest Date of
Conversion
Cawelti Court 28 28 Tax Credits 2050
Oak Forest Apartments/Elm Village 20 19 Tax Credits 2051
Juniper Street Apartments 14 15 Tax Credits 2054
Cortina D’Arroyo 108 107 Tax Credits 2060
Courtland Street Apartments 36 35 Tax Credits 2068
Halcyon Collective 20 19 Tax Credits 2072
Parkview Manor 61 61 HUD 2031
Total 287 283 — —
Source: HCD SLO Housing Element Update Data Profile 2019 and California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC), 2020
California Housing Element law requires all jurisdictions to include a study of all state and/or
federally assisted low-income housing units that may at some future time be lost to the affordable
inventory by the expiration of some type of affordability restrictions. The law requires that the
analysis and study cover a 10-year period beginning at the start of the Housing Element planning
period, that is, December 31, 2020, through December 31, 2030.
At-risk units are financially subsidized low-income housing projects that may be at risk for
conversion to market-rate because they are nearing the end of their subsidized contract. Such
units are deemed “at risk” of being lost as affordable housing. Currently, no subsidized housing
Item 9.a. - Page 78
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
61
units are considered at risk of converting to market-rate units within 10 years of the beginning of
this Housing Element planning period. However, Program I.1-1 states that the City will maintain a
list of all dwellings in the city that are subsidized by government funding or low-income housing
developed through local regulations or incentives, and that the City will contact all property
owners and notify them of the legal requirements to provide notice prior to the conversion of any
units for lower-income households to market-rate units.
Item 9.a. - Page 79
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
62
Item 9.a. - Page 80
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
63
CHAPTER 4 - HOUSING RESOURCES
This chapter evaluates the availability of land and public services in Arroyo Grande to support
future residential development. The chapter also summarizes financial resources available for
affordable housing and energy conservation opportunities.
4.1 Regional Housing Needs Determinations
State law requires councils of government to prepare Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plans
(RHNAP) for all cities and counties within their jurisdiction. The RHNAP for San Luis Obispo County,
which includes the City of Arroyo Grande, was prepared by SLOCOG and adopted in August
2019. The RHNAP is intended to anticipate growth, and therefore allow the City to plan for this
anticipated growth based on the RHNA. It also is intended to ensure that adequate sites and
zoning exist to address anticipated housing demand during the planning period (December 31,
2020, through December 31, 2028). In addition, the RHNAP sets targets to ensure the availability of
sites to accommodate the housing needs of a wide range of socioeconomic segments of a
community.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65580 et seq., SLOCOG developed a methodology for
estimating the future housing needs of the county, which was then allocated to each jurisdiction.
This methodology took the housing need for the entire region (10,810 housing units), and weighted
that figure in order to improve intraregional jobs/housing balance. The methodology distributed
the regional figure based on the city’s proportional share of population and jobs (weighting 75
percent to population and 25 percent to jobs). This methodology also excluded four unique,
statewide employers from the figures because these employers would result in a disproportionate
allocation; the employers excluded were Atascadero State Hospital, the California Men’s Colony,
Cal Poly, and the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. According to data from the California DOF,
the City of Arroyo Grande is projected to comprise six percent of the region’s population, and six
percent of the region’s jobs. These factors, when applied to the methodology, resulted in a total
allocation of 692 housing units needed to accommodate the anticipated population growth in
the City between December 31, 2020, and December 31, 2028.
Pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (Section 50093, et seq.) the RHNAP divided the
specified housing allocation into four income groups. The groups are defined as percentages of
County median income. Table 4-1 displays the criteria for the income groups. As noted earlier in
the element, half of the RHNA number for very low income is assumed to apply to the extremely
low-income category.
Table 4-1 Income Group
Very Low Household income is less than 50% of the County median income.
Low Household income is between 51% and 80% of the County median income.
Moderate Household income is between 81% and 120% of the County median income.
Above Moderate Household income is greater than 120% of the County median income.
Source: 2020 HCD Income Definitions
Item 9.a. - Page 81
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
64
4.2 2020–2028 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
As noted, the total number of dwelling units that need to be accommodated during the planning
period for Arroyo Grande is 692 housing units. The four income group categories and their
respective allocation of housing units needed, derived from U.S. Census data and the ACS, are
outlined in Table 4-2. The combined very low and low-income categories make up 40 percent of
the housing allocation.
Table 4-2 Housing Need Allocation by Income Category
Number Percent Share
Very Low1 170 24.6%
Low 107 15.5%
Moderate 124 17.9%
Above Moderate 291 42.0%
Total 692 100%
Source: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan 2019, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, U.S. Census/ACS
Notes:
1 As noted earlier in the element, 50 percent of the very low income RHNA is assumed to be for extremely low-income households.
According to HCD and based upon federal income standards, the median household income for
a family of four in San Luis Obispo County was $97,300 in 2020. Table 4-3 indicates the income limits
or thresholds by income category for 2020 along with the median income for each household size.
Table 4-3 Income Limits, County of San Luis Obispo
Number of
Persons in
Household
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely
low-income $20,400 $23,300 $26,200 $29,100 $31,450 $35,160 $39,640 $44,120
Very low-
income $33,950 $38,800 $43,650 $48,500 $52,400 $56,300 $60,150 $64,050
Low-
income $54,350 $62,100 $69,850 $77,600 $83,850 $90,050 $96,250 $102,450
Median
Income $68,100 $77,850 $87,550 $97,300 $105,100 $112,850 $120,650 $128,450
Moderate
Income $81,750 $93,400 $105,100 $116,750 $126,100 $135,450 $144,750 $154,100
Source: HCD 2020.
Over the period from January 1, 2019 to September 2020, 118 above-moderate income primary
units, 29 accessory dwelling units, and a HASLO low-income housing project comprising 20 deed-
restricted low-income units were constructed or permitted in Arroyo Grande. In addition, two very-
low income units were entitled as part of a project receiving a density bonus. Fourteen of the
accessory dwelling units constructed or approved are assumed to be available to low-income
families, while 15 accessory dwelling units constructed or approved are assumed to be moderate-
Item 9.a. - Page 82
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
65
income units. The affordability assumptions about the accessory dwelling units being counted in
these income categories are included in the subsection later in this section.
The City continues to use funds from the City’s Affordable Housing in-Lieu Fee Program when
feasible to finance future affordable housing projects. The City strives to make funding available
to local affordable housing non-profit organizations to assist with housing projects when possible.
However, the level of funding the City can provide is not sufficient to address direct and
associated costs of providing this level of housing without increased state or federal financial
assistance.
After accounting for permit and construction activity in the period from January 2018 to
December 2019, the City has a remaining RHNA of 523 units. Of these remaining units, 241 are
lower-income units (see Table 4-4).
Table 4-5 shows the City’s RHNA, units permitted or constructed since January 1, 2019, and the
vacant and non-vacant land available for residential development. The bottom row shows the
RHNA remaining after those units are subtracted. It is important to note that the City is not
responsible for the actual construction of the units in the RHNA. The City is, however, responsible
for creating a regulatory environment in which the private market can build units affordable to
extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and above moderate households to meet the City’s
allocation. This includes the creation, adoption, and implementation of General Plan policies,
development standards, and/or economic incentives to encourage the construction of various
types of units.
Table 4-4 City Share of Regional Housing Need 2019–2028
Extremely
Low
Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
(added across)
2019–2028 RHNA 85 85 107 124 291 692
Units Constructed/
Approved Since 1/1/2019 0 2 20 0 118 140
Accessory Dwelling Units
Constructed/Approved 0 0 14 15 0 29
Remaining 2019–2028 RHNA 241 109 173 523
Source: San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, City of Arroyo Grande 2020
Item 9.a. - Page 83
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
66
As Table 4-5 shows, the City can meet all its remaining RHNA with available vacant and non-
vacant sites and accessory dwelling unit development potential. The City has vacant and non-
vacant land available to accommodate 330 units. Of these, 124 units would be located on sites
that can be developed to accommodate the lower-income allocation. Additionally, the City has
identified accessory dwelling unit development potential of 236 units. Vacant and non-vacant
land and accessory dwelling unit potential are discussed in Section 4.3.
4.3 Land Availability
State housing law requires that the housing element provide an inventory of land suitable and
available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for
intensification and/or redevelopment. The purpose of this requirement is to identify sites that could
accommodate residential development as set forth by the RHNAP. This analysis is not a
construction quota or an anticipated list of projects that will be constructed, given that the law
recognizes that there may be limitations that would affect residential development, as well as the
fact that private development and market forces affect the level of housing construction.
Table 4-6 provides a list of vacant and non-vacant sites available for housing construction. Figure
4-1 presents a housing opportunity inventory map with locations for the sites discussed in Table 4-6.
The City’s Land Use Element includes a “Mixed-Use” land use category that encompasses
approximately 85 percent (254 acres) of all the commercially zoned land within the City.
Development standards for the Village Core Downtown (VCD) and Village Mixed-Use (VMU)
districts allow densities of up to 15 dwelling units per acre. Other mixed-use districts include
Gateway Mixed-Use (GMU), Fair Oaks Mixed-Use (FOMU), and Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU), Office
Mixed-Use (OMU), Industrial Mixed-Use (IMU), and Highway Mixed-Use (HMU). Development
standards for most of these mixed-use districts have a range of maximum densities from 15 to 25
dwelling units per acre, with the exceptions in the IMU and TMU zoning districts, whose maximum
Table 4-5 Remaining RHNA, 2019–2028
Extremely
Low Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
(added
across)
Subtotal remaining RHNA 241 113 173 523
Vacant Land Inventory1 66 8 59 133
Non-Vacant Land
Inventory1 58 0 139 197
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Potential 0 0 120 116 0 236
Total Additional Units from
Vacant and Non-Vacant
Land and ADU Potential
244 124 198 566
Surplus 2019–2028 RHNA 3 15 25
Notes:
1 Details about these sites are found in Table 4-6
Source: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan 2019, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, City of Arroyo Grande 2020.
Item 9.a. - Page 84
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
67
density is subject to discretionary review. Exceptions to minimum density requirements include
GMU and FOMU zoning districts, which have minimum densities set at 75 percent of maximum.
Most of the land (the exception is the Regional Commercial zoning district) within the City is zoned
for some level of residential development with minimum densities.
The City recognizes that the state requires land zoned at 20 units per acre or greater to meet the
extremely low, very low-, and low-income housing allocation. With the flexible density for mixed-
use (MU) zoned areas, the City is able to meet or exceed the 20 units per acre. There is no minimum
percent of a mixed-use project that must be non-residential, but some portion needs to be non-
residential. Recent projects have all had a residential component and have all been developed
as almost all residential. For example, the project located at the intersection of Halcyon Road and
Fair Oaks Road achieved a density of 25 units per acre in the OMU zoning district. The project was
less than 1-percent commercial, demonstrating that a nearly 100-percent residential project can
be achieved in the OMU zoning district. Based on this recent project, the development potential
is assumed to be 95-percent residential for the sites included to address extremely low, very low,
and low-income RHNA in the OMU and FOMU zoning districts that have these same regulations.
The HMU zoning district allows 20 units per acre for an all residential or mixed use project.
Other recently approved or constructed high-density residential projects in the mixed-use zoning
districts include the 1136 E. Grand project, which will demolish existing structures and construct a
41,000-square-foot development with a 2,220-square-foot medical office structure and twenty-
two residential units, two of which will be deed restricted for very-low income households. The
project has a density of 24 units per acre. The 1214 E. Grand project, which will also demolish an
existing commercial structure and construct a 21,700-square-foot development with a 400-square-
foot commercial structure and ten residential units. This project has a density of 16 units per acre.
The City has demonstrated that it is flexible in approving higher-density residential projects and
that higher-density residential projects are being developed as part of mixed-use projects.
Vacant Land
The current vacant land inventory (Table 4-6) identifies the potential for 133 units. Arroyo Grande
has over 70 acres of vacant land in the PD, RR, RS, SF, VMU, and OMU zoning districts. Most of these
sites are expected to accommodate above-moderate-income households. A map showing the
locations of vacant and non-vacant sites is shown as Figure 4-1.
Non-Vacant Land
The City also has non-vacant sites that are underutilized and have potential to redevelop for
various densities of housing during the planning period. All of the non-vacant sites included in
Table 4-6 to address lower income RHNA are zoned to allow at least 20 units per acre in a mixed-
use project as described earlier in this section.
HASLO has agreed to a purchase price for the parcels at 700 Oak Park Boulevard listed in Table
4-6. The site includes four parcels, one vacant and three non-vacant. They all have the same
owner. HASLO has proposed 66 low-income units, which can be accomplished through a density
bonus. The site is in the OMU zoning district, which allows multifamily housing in a mixed-use project
at a density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre with a CUP.
The other four non-vacant parcels to address the lower income RHNA are all underutilized and
appropriately zoned to allow a mixed-use project with high density residential during the planning
Item 9.a. - Page 85
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
68
period. The precedent projects discussed in earlier sections are the type of project that would
likely develop on these sites over the course of the planning period. Details about each site are
provided in Table 4-6.
Additional non-vacant sites are included in Table 4-6 to address the above-moderate income
RHNA. The sites include parcels in the SF, RH, AG, MFA, PF, OMU, and FOMU zoning districts. These
sites vary in size and allowed density and may be suitable for a variety of types of residential
projects, and some allow higher densities. However, these sites are not considered as strong of
candidates to redevelop as affordable or high density housing as the non-vacant sites listed to
address the lower income RHNA. As a result, they are listed in the above-moderate income section
of Table 4-6 as market rate or above moderate-income units because these types of units have a
greater likelihood of being developed.
Accessory Dwelling Units
In 2018, 2019 and 2020, City planning permit records indicate that an average of 15 accessory
dwelling units were permitted per year. In 2018, 13 ADUs were permitted, in 2019, 15 ADUs were
permitted and as of October 2020, 14 ADUs have been permitted. The 14 ADUs so far in 2020 have
been extrapolated to 17 ADUs permitted through the end of 2020. Because of efforts the City is
already making to promote and facilitate ADUs and additional efforts committed to in the
programs in this housing element, it is assumed that an additional 236 accessory dwelling units will
be permitted between now and December 2028. In the fall of 2019, San Luis Obispo County
conducted a countywide market study of accessory dwelling units that included all of the cities
and unincorporated areas within the county. The market study found that accessory dwelling units
currently available for rent in San Luis Obispo County are affordable to a variety of income groups
and household sizes. The average market rate for an accessory dwelling unit ranges from about
$800 per month for a 350-square-foot accessory dwelling unit to up to $1,495 per month for 550-
square-foot accessory dwelling unit, placing many market-rate accessory dwelling units in the
affordable range for low-income households.
In addition, accessory dwelling unit research conducted by the University of California Berkeley’s
(UC Berkeley’s) Center for Community Innovation (Chapple et al. 2017) indicates that 40 percent
of accessory dwelling units are typically rented to family members or friends at either no cost or
below-market rental rates. Based on the combination of the countywide market study analysis
and the Chapple industry research, of the 236 accessory dwelling units projected to be built in
Arroyo Grande between 2020 and 2028, 120 are anticipated to be affordable to low-income
households and 116 are anticipated to be affordable to moderate-income households.
The Arroyo Grande accessory dwelling unit regulations encourage this housing type and allow
flexibility in their development. The regulations may assist homeowners in purchasing a home,
provide security for people living alone, provide quarters for relatives, make more efficient use of
infrastructure, increase the diversity of people living in neighborhoods, and offer an opportunity
for low- and moderate-income renters. Arroyo Grande last updated its regulations for accessory
dwelling units in 2017. Program A.2-1 calls for updates to the accessory dwelling unit regulations
to comply with changes to state law since 2017 and for other efforts to promote and facilitate
ADUs. Programs A.2-2 and A.3-3 also establish programs and efforts related to facilitating and
making ADUs more affordable in Arroyo Grande.
Item 9.a. - Page 86
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
69
Table 4-6 Land Inventory
APN Address Site Size
(Acres) Land Use Zoning
District
Maximum
Density
Maximum
Dwelling Units
Realistic
Dwelling Units -
80% of
Maximum
Units Unless
Noted
Vacant or Non-
Vacant Notes/Site Constraints Income Categories
Affordable To Infrastructure
Low Density Sites
007-019-015 318 Grace Lane 0.67 LD PD 1 unit/parcel 1.0 1 Vacant Per Reso 3732 Above Moderate Yes
007-781-055 Noyes Road 24.53 LD PD 2.5 10.0 8 Vacant Reso 3775 changed land use designation to Very-Low
Density Planned Development Above Moderate Yes
007-781-056 Noyes Road 26.35 LD PD 2.5 11.0 8 Vacant Reso 3775 changed land use designation to Very-Low
Density Planned Development Above Moderate Yes
007-851-034 737 Arabian Circle 0.61 LD PD 0.7 1.0 1 Vacant Per Reso 1745 approving Tract 1149 Above Moderate Yes
007-851-039 791 Arabian Circle 1.43 LD PD 0.7 1.0 1 Vacant Per Reso 1745 approving Tract 1149 Above Moderate Yes
007-015-018 164 Rodeo Drive 0.27 LMD PD 1 unit/parcel 1.0 1 Vacant Per Reso 2133 approving Tract 1390 Above Moderate Yes
007-784-008 252 Via Bandolero 0.58 LMD PD 0.9 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-785-022 534 Calle Cuervo 0.74 LMD PD 0.9 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
PD Totals 55.18 22
007-061-004 No address
assigned 0.59 LMD RR 1 0.6 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-061-010 No address
assigned 0.52 LMD RR 1 0.5 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
RR Totals 1.10 2
007-291-033 215 Cindy Way 1.18 LD RS 2.5 2.9 2 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-291-038 265 Cindy Way 0.98 LD RS 2.5 2.5 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-291-039 276 Cindy Way 1.15 LD RS 2.5 2.9 2 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-291-042 221 Cindy Way 1.36 LD RS 2.5 3.4 2 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-211-007 210 Tally Ho Road 0.59 LMD RS 2.5 1.5 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-254-062 576 Paseo Street 0.19 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-254-063 582 Paseo Street 0.21 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-471-002 366 Stagecoach
Road 0.29 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-471-029 416 Stagecoach
Road 0.26 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-471-030 410 Stagecoach
Road 0.24 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-471-031 400 Stagecoach
Road 0.24 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-471-033 355 Gularte Road 0.25 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-471-035 323 Gularte Road 0.26 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-471-036 302 Zogata Way 0.25 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-471-037 314 Zogata Way 0.26 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-471-038 328 Zogata Way 0.26 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
Item 9.a. - Page 87
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
70
Table 4-6 Land Inventory
APN Address Site Size
(Acres) Land Use Zoning
District
Maximum
Density
Maximum
Dwelling Units
Realistic
Dwelling Units -
80% of
Maximum
Units Unless
Noted
Vacant or Non-
Vacant Notes/Site Constraints Income Categories
Affordable To Infrastructure
007-471-039 340 Zogata Way 0.28 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-471-040 346 Zogata Way 0.24 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-013-006 1575 Hillcrest Drive 0.42 LMD RS 2.5 1.1 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
RS Totals 8.90 22
077-021-010 1457 Hillcrest Drive 0.36 LMD SF 4.5 1.6 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-511-002 No address
assigned 0.29 MD SF 4.5 1.3 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-548-029 No address
assigned 0.75 MD SF 4.5 3.4 2 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-548-032 No address
assigned 0.45 MD SF 4.5 2.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-548-038 225 Whitely Street 0.15 MD SF 4.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-572-014 702 Myrtle Street 0.17 MD SF 4.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-126-009 1406 Strawberry
Avenue 0.16 MD SF 4.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-151-014 1278 Cedar Street 0.14 MD SF 4.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-223-070 185 Wood Place 0.16 MD SF 4.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-353-014 902 The Pike 0.26 MD SF 4.5 1.2 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-163-001 Cedar & Aspen
Streets 0.60 MD SF 4.5 2.7 2 Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-571-007 795 E CHERRY AVE 0.36
SFR-MD w/
NP overlay SF 4.5 1.6 1 Non-Vacant These 10 parcels are adjacent and considered one
potential site. This site is subject to Neighborhood Plan
requirements to coordinate infrastructure
improvements and circulation. Existing use is low
density single-family development under multiple
ownerships. Surrounding uses include single-family
residences and active agricultural land. Site
constraints include creek setback and agricultural
buffer.
Above Moderate Yes
007-571-010 NO ADDRESS
ASSIGNED 0.02
SFR-MD w/
NP overlay
SF
4.5 1.0 1
Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-571-011 444 LIERLY LN 1.47
SFR-MD w/
NP overlay
SF
4.5 6.6 2
Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-571-012 404 LIERLY LN 0.29
SFR-MD w/
NP overlay
SF
4.5 1.3 1
Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-571-013 447 LIERLY LN 2.74
SFR-MD w/
NP overlay
SF
4.5 12.3 6
Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-571-015 841 E CHERRY AVE 1.98
SFR-MD w/
NP overlay
SF
4.5 8.9 4
Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-571-016 441 LIERLY LN 0.32
SFR-MD w/
NP overlay
SF
4.5 1.4 1
Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-571-017 811 E CHERRY AVE 0.93
SFR-MD w/
NP overlay
SF
4.5 4.2 1
Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-571-018 835 E CHERRY AVE 3.92
SFR-MD w/
NP overlay
SF
4.5 17.6 7
Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-571-019 831 E CHERRY AVE 0.64
SFR-MD w/
NP overlay SF 4.5 2.9 1
Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
Item 9.a. - Page 88
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
71
Table 4-6 Land Inventory
APN Address Site Size
(Acres) Land Use Zoning
District
Maximum
Density
Maximum
Dwelling Units
Realistic
Dwelling Units -
80% of
Maximum
Units Unless
Noted
Vacant or Non-
Vacant Notes/Site Constraints Income Categories
Affordable To Infrastructure
077-192-076 1051 Ash Street 0.22 CF/SF SF 4.5 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-192-077 1047 Ash Street 0.21 CF/SF SF 4.5 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-192-078 1045 Ash Street 0.22 CF/SF SF 4.5 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-192-083 1029 Ash Street 0.77 CF/SF SF 4.5 3.5 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
007-501-012 513 Ide Street 1.63 C/OS SF/PF 4.5 7.3 5 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-203-009 991 Dodson Way 0.25 VHD SF 4.5 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-203-019 279 Alder 0.19 VHD SF 4.5 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
SF Totals 19.66 49
006-095-025 Valley Road 7.32 SFR LD RH 0.67 4.9 4 Non-Vacant Owned by Judith Haddox
Above Moderate Yes
RH Totals 7.32 4
007-531-002 1010 Huasna Rd. 0.25 AG AG Determined
through
discretionary
review for
farmworker
housing
Determined
through
discretionary
review for
farmworker
housing
4 Non-Vacant
These two parcels are adjacent and considered one
potential site. Possible Farm Working Housing: Farm
worker housing is allowed on this site. Density of farm
worker housing is determined through discretionary
review. Another option is to rezone to MF (9 du/ac).
Surrounding uses include a mobile home park and
agricultural uses. Owners are Dunn Douglass Family
Trust and Charles Cabassi.
Above Moderate Yes
007-531-005 980 Huasna Rd. 1.61 AG AG 10 Non-Vacant
Above Moderate Yes
AG Totals 1.86 14
077-241-013 406 S. Elm St 0.82 MFR-HD MFA 14 11.5 6 Non-Vacant These three parcels are adjacent and considered one
potential site. Special needs or high density. Current
uses include single family residence, residential care
facility (Arroyo Grande Care Center owned by
Compass Health, Inc.) and Coastal Christian School
(grades K-12). Property owners are Mathias Family
Trust, McMullen Juanita Living Trust, and Landmark
Missionary Baptist Church. Estimated 25% of property
developed at maximum density.
Above Moderate Yes
077-241-035 1212 Farroll Ave. 3.94 O OMU 15 59.1 25 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-241-062 1220 Farroll Ave. 5.08 CF/SF PF
Determined
through
discretionary
review
Determined
through
discretionary
review
29 Non-Vacant
Above Moderate Yes
MF/PF/OMU
Totals
077-111-009 1126 Grand Ave 0.49 MU FOMU 15 7.4 1 Non-Vacant Assume back lot and infill development. Multiple
parcels along Grand Avenue. Existing use is strip mall
development. Surrounding uses are primarily other
similar commercial uses. The subject properties are
under multiple ownerships. Parcels without units
assigned to them would be combined with other larger
parcels if development occurred.
Above Moderate Yes
077-111-011 1106 Grand Ave 0.64 MU FOMU 15 9.6
1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-111-012 1092 Grand Ave 0.48 MU FOMU 15 7.2
1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-111-014 No Address
Assigned 0.44 MU FOMU 15 6.6 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
Item 9.a. - Page 89
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
72
Table 4-6 Land Inventory
APN Address Site Size
(Acres) Land Use Zoning
District
Maximum
Density
Maximum
Dwelling Units
Realistic
Dwelling Units -
80% of
Maximum
Units Unless
Noted
Vacant or Non-
Vacant Notes/Site Constraints Income Categories
Affordable To Infrastructure
077-111-057 Multiple Addresses 0.52 MU FOMU 15 7.8
1 Non-Vacant
Above Moderate Yes
077-112-001 1108 Grand Ave 0.02 MU FOMU 15 1.0 0 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-112-002 1112 Grand Ave 0.02 MU FOMU 15 1.0 0 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-112-003 1116 Grand Ave. 0.02 MU FOMU 15 1.0 0 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-112-004 1118 Grand Ave 0.06 MU FOMU 15 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-112-006 1118 Grand Ave 0.34 MU FOMU 15 5.1 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-112-005 1124 Grand Ave 0.06 MU FOMU 15 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-113-015 1140 Grand Ave 0.46 MU FOMU 15 6.9 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-211-010 1151 Grand Ave 0.19 MU FOMU 15 2.9 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-211-015 1147 E Grand Ave 0.63 MU FOMU 15 9.5 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-211-018 1139 Grand Ave 0.63 MU FOMU 15 9.5 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-211-023 1119 E Grand Ave 0.21 MU FOMU 15 3.2 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-211-024 1105 Grand Ave 0.25 MU FOMU 15 3.8 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-211-035 1105 E Grand Ave 0.14 MU FOMU 15 2.1 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-211-036 No Address
Assigned 0.03 MU FOMU 15 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-211-037 1069 E Grand Ave 0.84 MU FOMU 15 12.6 2 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-221-002 1045 Grand Ave 0.22 MU FOMU 15 3.3 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-221-003 1031 E Grand Ave 0.64 MU FOMU 15 9.6 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-221-026 1023 Grand Ave 0.22 MU FOMU 15 3.3 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-221-027 1017 Grand Ave 0.27 MU FOMU 15 4.1 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-221-028 1013 E Grand Ave 0.55 MU FOMU 15 8.3 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-221-036 1025 Grand Ave 0.22 MU FOMU 15 3.3 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
077-221-037 1053 Grand Ave 0.82 MU FOMU 15 12.3 2 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes
9.41 25
Low Density
Totals 113.27 198
Medium Density Sites
007-501-036 510 E Branch
Street 0.24 VC VMU 15 3.6 2 Vacant Moderate Yes
007-501-037 516 E Branch
Street 0.16 VC VMU 15 2.5 1 Vacant Moderate Yes
007-541-004 122 Nelson Street 0.18 VC VMU 15 2.7 2 Vacant Moderate Yes
007-541-025 126 Nelson Street 0.16 VC VMU 15 2.4 1 Vacant Moderate Yes
007-541-040 117 Poole Street 0.23 VC VMU 15 3.5 2 Vacant Moderate Yes
Item 9.a. - Page 90
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
73
Table 4-6 Land Inventory
APN Address Site Size
(Acres) Land Use Zoning
District
Maximum
Density
Maximum
Dwelling Units
Realistic
Dwelling Units -
80% of
Maximum
Units Unless
Noted
Vacant or Non-
Vacant Notes/Site Constraints Income Categories
Affordable To Infrastructure
Medium
Density Totals 0.98 8
High Density Sites
077-011-010
through -13
700 Oak Park
Boulevard 2.26 MU OMU 20 42.9 66
One vacant
and three non-
vacant parcels
This site is made up of 4 adjacent parcels, one vacant
and 3 non-vacant with the same owner. Multi-family
allowed with CUP in a mixed use project. HASLO is in
the process of purchasing these parcels to build
affordable housing. They are planning to build 66 units
(through a density bonus).
Extremely Low, Very
Low, Low Yes
077-204-028 280 S Halcyon 0.83 Office
Professional OMU 20 15.8 12 Non-Vacant
Multi-family allowed with CUP in a mixed use project.
The property is developed with a small single-family
residence and therefore underutilized. The
surrounding uses include commercial and high density
residential development. The owner has expressed
interest in developing housing on the parcel. Realistic
capacity on this parcel is calculated as 80 % of 95 %
of maximum density to account for an estimated 5%
of the project on this site being commercial uses.
Extremely Low, Very
Low, Low Yes
077-211-022 1125 E Grand 0.85 Mixed Use FOMU 25 20.2 16 Non-Vacant
Multi-family allowed with CUP in a mixed use project.
This parcel is nearly vacant with a few very small,
abandoned structures. The surrounding uses are
primarily other similar commercial uses. Realistic
capacity on this parcel is calculated as 80 % of 95 %
of maximum density to account for an estimated 5%
of the project on this site being commercial uses.
Extremely Low, Very
Low, Low Yes
077-221-031 1019 E Grand 0.75 Mixed Use FOMU 25 17.8 14 Non-Vacant
Multi-family allowed with CUP in a mixed use project.
This parcel has one single-family house on it with
about half the parcel not built on. The surrounding
uses are primarily commercial uses. Realistic capacity
on this parcel is calculated as 80 % of 95 % of
maximum density to account for an estimated 5% of
the project on this site being commercial uses.
Extremely Low, Very
Low, Low Yes
006-311-063 601 E Grand 1.05 Mixed Use HMU 20 21.0 16 Non-Vacant
Multi-family allowed with CUP in a 100% residential or
mixed use project. This parcel is underutilized and is
mostly paved and unpaved parking/vacant lot. There
is one very small commercial structure about the size
of a coffee stand which is in use as a locksmith
business. The surrounding uses are commercial.
Extremely Low, Very
Low, Low Yes
High Density
Totals 5.74 124
Totals 119.99 330
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2020.
Item 9.a. - Page 91
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
74
Figure 4-1 Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory Map
Item 9.a. - Page 92
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
75
4.4 Infrastructure Resources
This section examines the availability and capacity of public facilities and services within the City
that are essential to residential development. These include water, sewer, public safety, and
schools. To comply with Senate Bill 1087, the City will immediately forward its adopted Housing
Element to its Public Works Department so they can grant priority for water and sewer service
allocations to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income households.
Water
The City pumps groundwater and purchases treated surface water. Groundwater is pumped from
two separate basins: the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin and the Pismo Formation. The Santa
Maria Basin is adjudicated, and the City currently has an allocation of 1,323 acre-feet per year
(AFY) from that basin. The Pismo Formation is not adjudicated, and the City has established
appropriative rights. The majority of the City’s supply is from Lopez Lake. The City has a contract
with the County of San Luis Obispo Water Conservation and Flood Control District providing an
entitlement of 2,290 AFY of treated surface water in normal conditions. The City’s current total
water supply is 3,773 AFY.
In calendar year 2019, the City used 2,138 acre-feet of water, which calculates to a per-capita
consumption of 108 gallons per person per day. If the per-capita consumption remains at this
level, the City’s buildout population of 20,000 would require an annual supply of 2,420 acre-feet,
which can be met with the current water supply. In addition to the existing water supply, the
Central Coast Blue project to supplement groundwater is anticipated to provide Arroyo Grande
with 429 acre-feet of water annually. Table 4-7 shows the current and projected water supply
through 2035.
Table 4-7 Current and Projected Water Supply – Acre-feet per year (AFY)
Water Supply Sources 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Groundwater – Santa Maria Groundwater Basin 1,323 1,323 1,3231 1,3231 1,3231
Groundwater – Pismo Formation 160 160 2002 2002 2002
County of San Luis Obispo Lopez Reservoir Project 2,290 2,290 2,2903 2,2903 2,2903
Total 3,773 3,773 4,242 4,242 4,242
Notes:
1 This amount will be adjusted lower based on the deep well index and the basin groundwater model during dry years and drought.
2 Well No. 11, planned to be installed in 2021, will provide an additional 40 AFY.
3 The water supply contract currently is undergoing changes that include storage rights to unused water. It is projected the 2,290 AFY entitlement will increase based on additional stored water during normal years.
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2020.
The City continues to offer free plumbing retrofits, washing machine rebates, and commercial
dishwashing machine rebates to customers. City customers have reduced their per-capita
consumption rate by 34 percent since 2013, conserving 975 AFY. This effort, along with improved
groundwater and surface water management, coupled with the Central Coast Blue recycled
water project, will provide Arroyo Grande with a sustainable water supply for the foreseeable
future.
Item 9.a. - Page 93
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
76
The Municipal Code was revised during the 2013-2016 drought to City adopt emergency water
shortage restrictions and regulations, along with permanent water conservation measures. The
water system has increased capacity by building an additional 250,000-gallon storage tank for
the Oro Pressure Zone. This zone now has two tanks storing up to 500,000 gallons. Several water
main projects have been completed, replacing old 4-inch mains with new 8-inch mains. The
current 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and Water System Master Plan provide guidance
on the Capital Improvement Plan five-year document. The water distribution system has a
hydraulic model that can be used to determine capacity issues for new development and
required system upgrades. The water system is operated under a Water Supply Permit issued by
the State Water Resources Control Board. The permit requires monthly and annual reporting of
water quality and system operation.
Sewer
The City operates a sewer collection system of approximately 68 miles of sewer main, 1,300
maintenance holes, and 5 sewer lift stations. The sewer system is operated under a collection
system discharge permit from the State Water Resources Control Board, which includes the
requirement of a Sewer System Management Plan completed every five years.
The sewer system has a hydraulic model that can be used to determine capacity for new
development projects. The Sewer System Master Plan provides recommended capital
improvement projects for the five-year document. The need for the South San Luis Obispo County
Sanitation District’s services is dependent on the land use approvals by the City. The City of Arroyo
Grande anticipates growing at a 1 percent growth rate over the next 20 years. The Sanitation
District facilities are in good condition and a plan to make capital improvements is currently being
implemented. The City has sufficient wastewater infrastructure and capacity to serve the RHNA
described earlier in Chapter 4.
Public Safety
The City of Arroyo Grande Police Department is responsible for law enforcement, investigations,
and crime prevention programs within the City limits. The Five Cities Fire Authority was established
in July 2010 by a joint powers agreement between the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach,
and Oceano Community Services District and is responsible for providing fire protection and
medical response. The City historically has low levels of major crime or fire loss despite below-
average police and fi re department staffing. There are no standards regarding appropriate or
adequate numbers of officers per number of residents. Average response time within the City limits
is between 4 to 6 minutes, which for some of the areas of the City is consistent with a recognized
standard of 5 minutes.
It is generally expected that police and fire resources will improve with additional development
that generates increased tax revenues. However, with the recent shifts of local tax revenues to
the state, and decreasing state revenues being provided to local governments, additional
development may cause a decrease in public safety for the community.
Schools
School facilities for Arroyo Grande are provided by the Lucia Mar Unified School District, which
provides educational services in the South County Area, which includes Grover Beach, Pismo
Beach, Oceano, Nipomo, and the remaining unincorporated county. The District operates and
Item 9.a. - Page 94
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
77
maintains 11 elementary schools, three middle schools, three high schools, and New Tech High
School. With the exception of Nipomo High, recent studies have indicated that most of the schools
were built in the 1950s and 1960s and thus may be subject to needed renovation. Information
provided in the Arroyo Grande General Plan Environmental Impact Report adopted in 1991
indicated that many of the schools were operating at an over capacity level. With the opening
of Nipomo High in 2002, that high school level capacity was resolved. In 2016, voters in the Lucia
Mar School District approved Measure I, authorizing up to $170,000,000 in general obligation (GO)
bond funds, which contributed renovation funds and modernization to Nipomo High Schools,
Lopez High School, and Arroyo Grande High School.
4.5 Financial Resources
Many state programs exist to provide cities, communities, and counties financial assistance in the
development, preservation, and rehabilitation of units for housing. HCD identifies and provides
detailed information on the grants and loans available for affordable and workforce housing,
some of which are listed in Table 4-8. HCD and other state agencies identify funding and programs
for housing. Certification of a jurisdiction’s housing element is required for eligibility for many state
funding sources. Table 4-8 Local Financial Resources
Funding Source Description
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
Program (AHSC)
The AHSC funds land use, housing, transportation, and land preservation
projects that support infill and compact development and reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
CalHome Program
CalHOME makes grants to local public agencies and nonprofit
corporations to assist first-time homebuyers become or remain
homeowners through deferred-payment loans. Funds can also be used
to assist in the development of multiple-unit ownership projects.
California Emergency Solutions
and Housing (CESH)
The CESH Program provides grant funds to eligible applicants for eligible
activities to assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Eligible
applicants are Administrative Entities (AEs; local governments, non-
profit organizations, or unified funding agencies) designated by the
Continuum of Care (CoC) to administer CESH funds in their service area.
Golden State Acquisition Fund
(GSAF)
GSAF was seeded with $23 million from the Department’s Affordable
Housing Innovation Fund. Combined with matching funds, GSAF makes
up to five-year loans to developers.
Housing Investment
Partnerships Program (HOME)
HOME assists cities, counties, and non-profit community housing
development organizations (CHDOs) to create and retain affordable
housing for lower-income renters or owners. At least 50 percent of the
amount is awarded to rural applicants and 15 percent is set aside for
CHDOs. Funds are available in California communities that do not
receive HOME funding directly from the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
Housing for a Health California
(HHC)
HHC provides funding on a competitive basis to deliver supportive
housing opportunities to developers using the federal National Housing
Trust Funds (NHTF) allocations for operating reserve grants and capital
loans.
Housing-Related Parks Program The Housing-Related Parks Program funds the creation of new park and
recreation facilities or improvement of existing park and recreation
Item 9.a. - Page 95
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
78
Funding Source Description
facilities that are associated with rental and ownership projects that are
affordable to very low- and low-income households.
Infill Infrastructure Grant
Program (IIG)
IIG provides grant funding for infrastructure improvements for new infill
housing in residential and/or mixed-use projects. Funds are made
available through a competitive application process.
Joe Serna, Jr., Farmworker
Housing Grant (FWHG)
FWHG makes grants and loans for development or rehabilitation of
rental and owner-occupied housing for agricultural workers with priority
for lower-income households
Local Early Action Planning
(LEAP) Grants
The LEAP program assists cities and counties with planning for housing
through providing over the counter, non-competitive planning grants.
Local Housing Trust Fund
Program (LHTF)
Helps finance local housing trust funds dedicated to the creation or
preservation of affordable housing.
Mobile Home Park Resident
Ownership Program (MPROP)
Funds awarded to mobile-home park tenant organizations to convert
mobile-home parks to resident ownership.
Multifamily Housing Program
(MHP)
MHP makes low-interest, long-term deferred-payment permanent loans
to developers of affordable multifamily rental and transitional housing
projects for lower-income households.
National Housing Trust Fund
National Housing Trust Fund is a permanent federal program with
dedicated source(s) of funding not subject to the annual
appropriations. The funds can be used to increase and preserve the
supply of affordable housing, with an emphasis on rental housing for
extremely low-income households (ELI households, with incomes of 30
percent of area median or less).
No Place Like Home
The No Place Like Home Program will have $2 billion in bond proceeds
to invest in the development of permanent supportive housing for
persons who are in need of mental health services and are
experiencing homelessness, chronic homelessness, or who are at risk of
chronic homelessness.
Pet Assistance and Support
(PAS) Program
Pet Assistance and Support provides funds to homeless shelters for
shelter, food and basic veterinary services for pets owned by individuals
experiencing homelessness.
Predevelopment Loan Program Provide predevelopment capital loans to finance the start of low-
income housing projects.
California Homebuyer’s Down
Payment Assistance Program
(CHDAP)
Collaboration with lenders to offer below market rate down-payment
loans.
Affordable Housing Partnership
Program (AHPP)
This program allows borrowers to combine a CalHFA first mortgage loan
with down payment and/or closing cost assistance from an Affordable
Housing Program Partner.
Housing Enabled by Local
Partnerships (HELP)
HELP Program and other below-market-rate financing and deferred
loans for local government and non-profits producing affordable
housing development.
California Housing Loan
Insurance Fund (CaHLIF)
Provides primary mortgage insurance for hard-to-qualify borrowers,
expanding home ownership opportunities.
California Housing Finance
Agency (CalHFA)
Conventional Loans
Various programs providing lower-cost loans, such as a 30-year fixed,
interest-only PLUS, 40-year fixed
Item 9.a. - Page 96
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
79
Funding Source Description
CalHFA Down-Payment
Assistance
Various programs providing loans for down payments, such as California
Homebuyer's Down-payment Assistance Program (CHDAP)
Section 811 Project Rental
Assistance
Section 811 Project Rental Assistance offers long-term project-based
rental assistance funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) through a collaborative partnership among
the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), Department of Health
Care Services (DHCS), Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD), Department of Developmental Services (DDS),
and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC).
Self-Help Builder Assistance
Program
Provides a source of financing to nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporations who
use self-help type construction for affordable housing.
Builder-Lock Program
Builders/Developers may purchase forward commitments for
permanent first mortgage financing for CalHFA-eligible borrowers tied
to their construction/marketing program at single-family new-home
developments anywhere in the state.
Mortgage Credit Certificate Federal tax credit for low- and moderate-income homebuyers who
have not owned a home in the past three years.
California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (CTCAC): Low-
Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTCs)
The CTCAC administers the federal and state LIHTC Programs. Both
programs were created to promote private investment in affordable
rental housing for low-income Californians.
California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (CTCAC): Historic
Rehabilitation Tax Credits
(HRTCs)
CTCAC and the California Office of Historic Preservation also administer
the HRTC program, which provide a 10%–20% one-time, Internal
Revenue Service tax credit on eligible rehabilitation costs for pre-1936
and National Register historic properties.
California Debt Limit Allocation
Committee (CDLAC): Various
Programs
Federal law limits how much tax-exempt debt a state can issue in a
calendar year for private projects that have a qualified public benefit.
This cap is determined by a population-based formula. CDLAC was
created to set and allocate California’s annual debt ceiling and
administer the state’s tax-exempt bond program to issue the debt.
CDLAC’s programs are used to finance affordable housing
developments for low-income Californians, build solid waste disposal
and waste recycling facilities, and finance direct loans used by in-need
college students and their parents.
Assisted-Living Conversion
Program (ALCP)
To provide private nonprofit owners of eligible developments with a
grant to convert some or all the dwelling units in the project into an
Assisted Living Facility (ALF) for the frail elderly.
Community Development
Block Grants (CDBG)
Grant awarded to the City annually on a formula basis to fund housing
and economic development for low- and moderate-income persons.
Emergency Capital Repairs
Program
Provides grants for substantial capital repairs to eligible multifamily
projects that are owned by private nonprofit entities.
HOME Investment Partnership
(HOME) Program Grant program specifically for housing.
Emergency Shelter Grant
Program (ESG)
Grant awarded on an annual formula basis for shelter and services to
homeless persons.
Housing Opportunities for
Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Funds available county-wide for supportive services and housing for
persons with HIV/AIDS.
Item 9.a. - Page 97
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
80
Funding Source Description
Shelter Plus Care (S+C) Grants for rental assistance, in combination with supportive services
from other sources, to homeless people.
Local Housing Funds
The City has an inclusionary housing ordinance. Fees collected under the ordinance are kept in
the In-Lieu Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Funding from this source can be directed to affordable
housing projects in the City and/or used to leverage state and federal housing funds. As of 2020,
the fund has a balance of $928,000 available for projects that increase the supply of affordable
housing units
4.6 Administrative Resources
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
The Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) was created to provide housing assistance for
the county’s lower-income residents. HASLO administers the Housing Choice Voucher/Section 8
rental assistance program and manages public housing developments. HASLO also administers
the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program, the Security Deposit Program, and other programs.
Currently, the agency provides 194 Section 8 vouchers to low-income households in Arroyo
Grande and maintains a waiting list that is currently closed.
People’s Self-Help Housing
People’s Self-Help Housing (PSHH) is a diverse nonprofit organization committed to furthering
opportunities for decent, safe, affordable housing and support services in San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, and Ventura Counties. PSHH has two primary programs - a Self-Help Homeownership
program and a Rental Housing Development and Construction Services Program. Since its
inception in the 1960s, PSHH has developed more than 1,200 sweat-equity homes and 1,700 rental
units and has assisted in the rehabilitation and repair of more than 3,000 housing units. PSHH
currently owns and operates four affordable housing projects in Arroyo Grande: Courtland Street
Apartments (36 low- and very low-income units), Juniper Street Apartments (14 low- and very low-
income units), Cawelti Court (28 units of housing for Seniors 62+ and Individuals living with
disabilities) and Oak Forest Apartments (24 low and very low-income units).
PSHH also provides free seminars to residents on the Central Coast, including those aimed at first-
time homebuyers and foreclosure prevention.
Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County (CAPSLO)
CAPSLO provides a wide variety of social services in San Luis Obispo County, including Homeless
Services, Head Start, Health Services, and Energy Conservation Services. CAPSLO operates the 40
Prado Road Campus in San Luis Obispo, which provides shelter and services to the county’s
homeless population. They also operate Head Start programs and two health centers in San Luis
Obispo and Arroyo Grande. The Energy Conservation division provides weatherization and home
repairs throughout the county. Another source of local housing funding is through the San Luis
Obispo County Housing Trust Fund (SLOCHTF), which is a private nonprofit corporation created to
increase the supply of affordable housing in San Luis Obispo County for very low, low-, and
Item 9.a. - Page 98
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
81
moderate-income households. SLOCHTF provides financing and technical assistance to help
private developers, nonprofit corporations, and government agencies produce and preserve
homes that working families, seniors on fixed incomes, and persons with disabilities can afford to
rent or buy. More information on SLOCHTF can be found at www.slochtf.org.
Item 9.a. - Page 99
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
82
Item 9.a. - Page 100
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
83
Chapter 5 – HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
The price of a home is based upon several basic costs: Land, materials, labor, financing rates and
insurance, government requirements and fees, as well as environmental constraints. The first two
sections of this chapter discuss governmental constraints and environmental and public service
constraints.
The cost of land, materials, and labor are determined by the free market economy. Financing
rates and insurance costs are set by the capital markets and state and federal regulations. These
items are discussed in the last section under non-governmental constraints.
5.1 Governmental Constraints
The intent of this section is to analyze governmental constraints that affect housing development,
as well as to identify constraints that may be modified to reduce barriers to the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels.
The California Legislature has delegated to local governments specific responsibilities and a
significant amount of discretionary control over the development and use of land. Through land
use controls, development review procedures, and fees, cities influence the location, density,
type, size, quality, and appearance of housing. These requirements significantly affect the cost
and availability of housing. Many of these controls are required by local government in response
to state and federal mandates to protect public health and safety, and others are adopted to
achieve the desired quality of life and objectives of the local community.
Land Use and Development Controls
The primary policy tool for promoting a balanced use of land and resources is through the City’s
General Plan. The 2001 General Plan establishes an overall framework for development and
conservation of land in the City, primarily through the Land Use Element. State law divides the
required content of a general plan into eight distinct elements and requires that the General Plan
be designed as a balanced, integrated document that is internally consistent. The Housing
Element is one of eight distinct General Plan elements and is required to address a number of
specific issues.
The primary means that the City uses to implement the General Plan is its Development Code,
which establishes development standards, intensity of development, and minimum site standards.
Various residential and mixed-use zoning districts are established that are intended to implement
the densities set by the General Plan. Other requirements in the City’s Development Code include
setbacks, lot coverage, parking, open space, and other related property development
standards. Table 5-1 provides a comparison of the land use designations from the General Plan
Land Use Element to the zoning districts implemented by the Development Code. Table 5-1 also
shows the maximum density per land use designation.
Item 9.a. - Page 101
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
84
Table 5-1 Urban Land Use Element and Development Code
General Plan Classification
General Plan
Dwelling Unit
Max. Density
Development Code Consistency
Consistent Zoning Min Lot Size in
Development Code
Agriculture (Ag) 1 du/10 ac.
General, Agricultural
Preserve or Agricultural
Preservation Overlay
10 ac.
Conservation/
Open Space(C/OS)
1 du/20 ac.
1 du/10 ac.
1 du/5 ac.
PF 25,000 sf
Single-Family Residential
Very Low Density (VLD) 1 du/2.5 ac. RE 92,500 sf
Low Density (LD) 1 du/1.5 ac.
1 du/1 ac.
RH
RR
49,000 sf
40,000 sf
Low Medium Density (LM) 2.5 du/1 ac. RS 12,000 sf2
Medium Density (MD) 4.5 du/ac. SF/VR SF – 7,200 sf
VR – 6,750 sf
Multifamily Residential
Multifamily Residential (MFR)
Medium High Density (MHD)
Townhouse/Condo
9.0 du/ac. MF 10,000 sf
Mobile Home Park (MHP) 12.0 du/ac. MHP 5 ac.
High Density (HD) Apartments 14 du/ac. MFA 10,000 sf
Very High Density (VHD) 25 du/ac. MFVH 20,000 sf
Mixed-Use (MU)
Village Core (VC)
Office (O)
PD, SP, and CF
25 du/ac. See Table 5-4
Source: City of Arroyo Grande General Plan and Development Code
Notes
1 Density Allowed in RR zoning district is 1.0 du/ac
2 Reduced minimum building site area allowed with provision to permanently preserve sensitive habitat and/or open space corridors and/or to avoid development of steep slopes and ridgelines
Mixed-use districts located along the East Grand Avenue corridor and South Halcyon Road allow
building heights up to 35 feet and three stories with the ability to go up to 40 feet in some districts
depending on the building size and proximity to residential development. There have been several
recent 3-story projects. None of them requested any exceptions. These height allowances have
not been found to constrain the development of 3 story projects. The Industrial Mixed-Use (IMU)
district along El Camino Real allows heights to 30 feet and three stories. All Multiple-Family zoning
districts allow 30 feet or two stories. Minor Exceptions can allow up to 33 feet in these districts. With
a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre, a parcel with the minimum lot size of 20,000
square feet in the MFVH zone can accommodate a maximum of 11 units. The 60% lot coverage
maximum allows a structure with a footprint of up to 12,000 square feet in this scenario. The 12,000
square foot structure could be divided into 11 units with a net floor area of approximately 800
square feet each and still comply with the maximum floor-area ratio of 0.45 for the zone. A second
story may reduce the footprint of the building to accommodate parking and other amenities, but
Item 9.a. - Page 102
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
85
buildings taller than two stories are not necessary to develop parcels in this zone to their maximum
density. Housing types permitted by residential and mixed-use zoning districts are provided in
Tables 5-2 and 5-3. Residential zoning development standards are shown in Table 5-4, multifamily
and other zoning development standards are shown in Table 5-5, and Mixed-Use development
standards are shown in Table 5-6.
Multifamily projects of 2 to 4 units and multifamily projects of more than four units in the Multifamily
Very High Density (MFVH) zoning district are permitted subject to an MUP, which is an
administrative process. With these projects, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) makes a
recommendation to the Community Development Director. Multifamily projects greater than four
units in all other districts require a CUP, which is a discretionary review process. The ARC considers
all CUPs associated with development projects and makes a recommendation to the City
Council, Planning Commission, and/or Community Development Director. Design Review (DR)
permits are limited to residential subdivisions approved with specific design guidelines. The ARC
reviews DR applications for consistency with the approved design guidelines and makes a
recommendation to the Community Development Director. Chapter 2.19 of the Municipal Code
outlines the functions, duties, procedures, and guiding purposes in reviewing projects for the ARC.
The function of the ARC is to make recommendations to decision makers regarding the
administration of the provisions of Title 16 (Development Code), whenever applicable, in a
manner that will:
1. Be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan and of Title 16 (Development
Code);
2. Develop and maintain a pleasant and harmonious environment;
3. Promote and enhance real property values;
4. Conserve the city’s natural beauty;
5. Preserve and enhance its distinctive visual character;
6. Ensure orderly and harmonious development of the city; and
7. Preserve historic structures and neighborhoods.
The ARC meets twice per month.
Development applications are subject, in many cases, to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). CEQA requires that development applications be subject to an environmental review of
the impacts that would result from implementation of a project.
The City, as part of its 2001 General Plan, prepared a program EIR to address the impacts of
development proposed by the plan. The anticipated residential development evaluated in the
General Plan is similar to that required by the Regional Housing Needs established for the City. The
Program EIR concluded that there were several significant environmental impacts that could not
be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Required findings and statements of overriding
considerations also required mitigation measures that will influence future residential development
and may require project EIRs that will increase the cost of the development. These costs are
unavoidable given the state-mandated requirements of CEQA.
Item 9.a. - Page 103
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
86
Table 5-2 Housing Types Permitted by Zoning District – Residential Zoning District
Residential Uses/Housing Type RE RH RR RS SF VR MF MFA MFVH MHP
Accessory dwelling unit P P P P P P P P P P
Assisted Living (Congregate Care) NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP
Boarding/rooming houses NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP
Condominium (air space) NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP
Convalescent care NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP
Emergency shelters NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Employee housing NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Home occupations P P P P P P P P P P
Homeless shelters within religious or social organization buildings NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP
Live-Work NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Mobile home parks C C C C C C C C C C
Mobile home subdivisions C C C C C C C C C C
Multiple-family housing (2–4 units) in a mixed-use project NP NP NP NP NP NP (1) (1) (1) NP
Multiple-family attached (5 or more units) in a mixed-use project NP NP NP NP NP NP (1) (1) (1) NP
Multiple-family attached (2–4 units) not in a mixed-use project NP NP NP NP NP NP MUP MUP P NP
Multiple-family attached (5 or more units) not in a mixed-use
project NP NP NP NP NP NP C C MUP NP
Residential care facility, 6 or fewer persons P P P P P P P P P P
Residential care facility, 7 or more persons NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Senior independent living uses NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP
Single-family attached (twin home, triplex, fourplex) NP PUD NP NP PUD NP PUD PUD NP NP
Single-family detached P P P P P MUP P P NP NP
Small-lot single-family detached NP PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD NP NP NP
Transitional and Supportive Housing P P P P P P P P P P
(1) Determined by the most restrictive requirement among uses.
Legend
P = Permitted C = Permitted subject to issuance of a Conditional-Use Permit PUD = Permitted subject to issuance of a Planned Unit Development Permit
MUP = Minor-Use Permit NP = Not Permitted Source: City of Arroyo Grande Development Code
Item 9.a. - Page 104
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
87
Table 5-3 Housing Types Permitted by Zoning District – Mixed-Use Zoning District
Residential Uses IMU TMU D-
2.11
VCD HCO
D-2.4
VMU D-2.11
HCO D-2.4 GMU FOMU HMU OMU
D-2.20 RC PF AG AP Specific Use Standards
Accessory dwelling unit NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP C C
Assisted Living (Congregate Care) NP NP CUP CUP CUP/ PED CUP/ PED NP CUP NP CUP NP NP
Boarding/rooming houses NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Condominium (air space) NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Convalescent care NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP NP
Emergency shelter P NP NP NP NP NP P NP NP (5) NP NP
Employee Housing NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP C C
Home occupation NP MUP P P P P MUP P NP NP P P 16.16.090
Homeless shelters within religious
or social organization buildings NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP NP
Live-Work NP P NP NP NP NP P NP NP NP NP NP
Mobile home parks NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Mobile home subdivisions NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Multiple-family attached (2 - 4
units) not in a mixed-use project NP NP MUP/ PED MUP CUP/ PED CUP/ PED CUP CUP NP NP NP NP
Minimum density (75% of total density allowed by district)
required by Housing Element is not required on lots fronting
E. Grand Ave., E. Branch Street or in HMU or IMU districts.
Multiple-family attached (5 or
more units) not in a mixed-use
project
NP NP NP CUP CUP/PED CUP/ PED
CUP (on
lots >20,000
square feet
CUP (on lots
>20,000
square feet)
NP NP NP NP
Minimum density (75% of total density allowed by district)
required by Housing Element is not required on lots fronting
E. Grand Ave., E. Branch Street or in HMU or IMU districts.
Multiple-family attached (2 - 4
units) in a mixed use project NP NP MUP/ PED MUP CUP/ PED CUP/ PED CUP CUP NP NP NP NP
Minimum density (75% of total density allowed by district)
required by Housing Element is not required on lots fronting
E. Grand Ave., E. Branch Street or in HMU or IMU districts.
Multiple-family attached (5 or
more units) in a mixed use project NP NP NP CUP CUP/PED CUP/ PED
CUP (on
lots >20,000
square feet
CUP (on lots
>20,000
square feet)
NP NP NP NP
Minimum density (75% of total density allowed by district)
required by Housing Element is not required on lots fronting
E. Grand Ave., E. Branch Street or in HMU or IMU districts.
Residential care facility, 6 or fewer
persons NP NP MUP/ PED MUP MUP/PED MUP NP MUP NP CUP NP NP
Residential care facility, 7 or more
persons NP NP CUP/PED CUP CUP/PED CUP/ PED NP CUP NP CUP NP NP
Senior independent living uses NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Single-family residential within a
mixed-use project NP NP NP MUP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Single-family attached (twin
home, triplex, fourplex) NP NP NP MUP (3) NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Single-family detached NP NP NP MUP (3) NP NP NP NP NP NP P/C (2) P/C (2)
Small lot single-family detached NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Item 9.a. - Page 105
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
88
Table 5-3 Housing Types Permitted by Zoning District – Mixed-Use Zoning District
Residential Uses IMU TMU D-
2.11
VCD HCO
D-2.4
VMU D-2.11
HCO D-2.4 GMU FOMU HMU OMU
D-2.20 RC PF AG AP Specific Use Standards
Transitional and Supportive
Housing (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) NP NP NP
(1) Size break between large
and small day care differs
between residential and
commercial zoning.
(2) Permitted on conforming
lots; conditional on non-
conforming lots
(3) Within a mixed-use project
only
(4) Subject to the same
restrictions as the same
residential type within this
zone.
(5) See Homeless Shelters within
religious or social
organization buildings
Legend
IMU = Industrial Mixed Use District (El Camino) P = Permitted Use OMU =Office Mixed Use District
TMU = Traffic Way Mixed Use District CUP = Conditional-Use Permit RC = Regional Commercial District
VCD = Village Core Downtown District NP = Not Permitted HCO = Historic Character Overlay District (Design Overlay District 2.4)
VMU = Village Mixed Use District FOMU = Fair Oaks Mixed Use District MUP = Minor-Use Permit
GMU = Gateway Mixed-Use District HMU= Highway Mixed Use District PED = Residential not permitted in pedestrian oriented storefront locations on ground floor facing E. Grand Avenue, East/West Branch Street or prime real estate space within shopping centers
Source: City of Arroyo Grande Development Code
Item 9.a. - Page 106
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
89
Table 5-4 Residential Site Development Standards Single-Family Zoning Districts
RE RH RR RS SF VR PD
Maximum density (DUs per
gross acre) 0.4 0.67 1.0 2.5 4.5 4.5 -34
Minimum building site1 (Net
area in sq. ft.) 92,5002 49,000 40,000
12,000 (reduced minimum building
site area allowed with provision to
permanently preserve sensitive
habitat and/or open space corridors
and/or to avoid development of
steep slopes and ridgelines)
7,200 6,750 -34
Minimum lot width3 200 ft. 130 ft. 120 ft. 80 ft. 70 ft. 50 ft. -33, 34
Minimum lot depth 250 ft. 200 ft. 200 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. -33, 34
Minimum front yard 50 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. -34
Minimum interior side yard
setback 30 ft. 10% of
lot width
10% of lot
width
5 ft. one side, 10 ft. other side
(For lots <12,000 sq. ft use SF)
5 ft. one side,
10 ft. other side 5 ft. -34
Minimum street side yard
setback 30 ft. 15% of
lot width
15% of lot
width 15 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft. -34
Minimum rear yard setback 50 ft. 40 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. (For lots <12,000 sq. ft use SF) 10 ft. (1- story)
15 ft. (2-story)
10 ft. (1-story)
15 ft. (2-story) -34
Maximum lot coverage4 35% 35% 35% 30% (For lots < 10,000 sq. ft. use SF) 40% 40%
30%, or as
shown on the
Development
Plan
Maximum height for buildings
and structures 30 ft. or 2 stories, whichever is less, 14 ft. for accessory buildings
-34
14 ft. for
accessory
buildings.
Minimum distance between
buildings (including main
dwellings and accessory
structures)5
20 ft. 20 ft. 6 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. -34
Source: City of Arroyo Grande Development Code
Item 9.a. - Page 107
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
90
Table 5-5 Residential Site Development Standards Multiple-Family and Other Zoning Districts
MF MFA MFVH MHP
Maximum density (DUs per gross acre) 9.0 14.0¹ 25.0 12.0
Minimum building site (Net area in sq. ft.) 10,000 10,000 20,000 5 acres
Minimum lot width 80 ft. 80 ft. 80 ft. 60 ft.6
Minimum lot depth 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft.6
Minimum front yard setback 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft.
Minimum interior side yard setback 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft.
Minimum street side yard setback 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft.
Minimum rear yard setback Average 15 ft.7 Average 15 ft.7 Average 15 ft.7 5 ft.
Maximum lot coverage 40% 45% 60%6 50%
Maximum height for buildings and structures
30 ft. or 2 stories,
whichever is less, 14 ft.
for accessory buildings
30 ft. or 2 stories,
whichever is less, 14 ft.
for accessory buildings
30 ft. or 2 stories,
whichever is less, 14 ft.
for accessory buildings
30 ft. or 2 stories,
whichever is less, 14 ft.
for accessory buildings
Minimum distance between buildings
(including main dwellings and accessory
structures)
10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft.
Source: City of Arroyo Grande Development Code
Table 5-6 Residential Site Development Standards Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
IMU TMU VCD VMU GMU FOMU HMU OMU
Maximum density –
Mixed-Use (DUs per
gross acre)
--8 --8 15 15 2516 2516 2016 2016
Maximum density –
Multifamily housing (DUs
per gross acre)
n/a n/a n/a n/a 15 15 20 15
Minimum density17 n/a n/a n/a n/a 75% of max.
density16
75% of max.
density16 n/a 75% of max.
density16
Minimum Lot Size 18,000 sf
(gross) 10,000 sf (gross) 2,500 sf 5,000 sf 20,000 sf
(gross)
15,000 sf
(gross)
20,000 sf
(gross) 20,000 sf
Minimum lot width 100 ft. 80 ft. 25 ft. 40 ft. 100 ft. 80 ft. 80 ft. 100 ft.
Item 9.a. - Page 108
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
91
Table 5-6 Residential Site Development Standards Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
Front Yard Setback 10 ft. 0-15 ft. 25 0-15 ft. 26 0-15 ft. 0-10 ft.18 0-10 ft.18 0-15 ft. 25 0-10 ft. 18
Rear Yard setback 0-15 ft.9 0-15 ft.10 0-15 ft. 0-15 ft.14 0-15 ft. 19 0-15 ft. 0-15 ft.10 0-15 ft.
Side yard setback 0-15 ft. 23 0 ft.10 0 ft. 0 ft.15 0-5 ft.19 0-5 ft.19 0 ft. 10 0-5 ft.
Street side yard setback 20 ft. 24 0-15 ft. 25 0-15 ft. 0-15 ft. 0-15 ft. 0-15 ft. 0-15 ft. 25 0-15 ft.
Maximum height 30 ft. or 2
stories 30 ft. or 3 stories11 30 ft. or 3
stories13
30 ft. or 3
stories13
35 ft. or 3
stories20
35 ft. or 3
stories20
30 ft. or 3
stories11
35 ft. or 3
stories21
Maximum building size 102,500 sf 50,000 sf12 20,000 sf 10,000 sf 102,500 sf 50,000 sf 50,000 sf12 50,000 sf22
Site Coverage 50% 75% 100% 100% 75% 70% 75% 70%
Floor Area Ratio 0.45 0.75 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.75 100
Off-street parking and
loading
Reference
Section
16.56.020
Reference
Standards D-2.11
and Section
16.56.020
Exceptions
allowed by
Section 16.16.120
Reference
Parking and
Business
Improvement
District Plan in
Section
16.56.020
Reference
Parking VMU
and HCO in
Section
16.56.020
(C)
--28 --30 --31
Reference
Section
16.56.020
Site design and signs
Reference
Chapter
16.60
Reference
Standards D-2.11
and Chapter
16.60
Reference
Standards for
Historic Districts
and Chapter
16.60
Reference
Standards for
Historic Districts
and Chapter
16.60
--27 --29
Reference
Standards
D-2.11 and
Chapter
16.60
--32
Source: City of Arroyo Grande Development Code
Notes (Tables 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6):
1 See Table 16.32.050-A for minimum lot sizes for parcels with slope greater than seven percent.
2 Area shall be increased to five acres for slope conditions exceeding 20 percent.
3 Width measurements for cul-de-sac or otherwise odd-shaped lots shall be determined on the basis of the average horizontal distance between the side lot lines, measured at right angles to the lot depth at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines.
4 The following floor area ratios shall be adhered to in all zoning districts in addition to lot coverage requirements:
Item 9.a. - Page 109
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
92
Lot Size Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
0 — 4,000 square feet net 0.35
4,001 — 7,199 square feet net 0.40
7,200 — 11,999 square feet net 0.50
12,000 — 39,999 square feet net 0.45
40,000 + square feet net
The above FARs shall not apply to condominium or planned unit development (PUD) projects where the proposed lot consists of a building footprint.
5 Within a planned unit development, building separations may be reduced to zero feet, provided that fire walls are provided per Uniform Building Code standards.
6 The minimum parcel size within the mobile home district may be reduced to 3,600 square feet with a minimum average width of 40 feet and a minimum frontage of not less than 30 feet if common open space areas and recreational facilities are provided as part of the subdivision and if the open space areas and recreational facilities are reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the subdivision. Standards for the provision of common open space required to permit a reduction in lot size are as follows:
(1) A minimum of 500 square feet of common open space and recreational area shall be provided for each residential lot in the subdivision.
(2) The combined square footage of common open space, recreational area, and residential lot area, not including public and private streets and cannon parking areas shall average not less than 6,000 square feet per lot within the subdivision.
(3) Open space and recreational areas shall be designated on the subdivision map, and shall be located entirely within the subdivision.
7 For two-story buildings, average rear yard setback shall be 20 feet. Average includes all buildings along rear property line and is subject to City approval.
8 New residential limited to live-work units in conjunction with allowed uses. Density determined by discretionary action.
9 50 feet if adjacent to a residential district.
10 Wherever a lot in any commercial or mixed-use district abuts a residential use or a lot in any residential use district, a minimum building setback of 20 feet measured from the property line shall be required for proposed commercial use.
11 30 feet or three stories, whichever is less; a maximum of 36 feet is allowable through the CUP process for visitor-serving uses.
12 A greater size may be allowed through the CUP process.
13 Maximum height is 30 feet or three stories, whichever is less; a maximum of 36 feet is allowable through the MUP process.
14 If project is mixed-use and/or abuts a residential district, then 10 feet required.
15 If a project is mixed-use and/or abuts a residential district, then 5 feet is required for single-story structures and 110 feet is required, on one side, for multiple stories.
16 Based on gross project area.
17 Projects that do not front E. Grand Avenue; densities do not include density bonus. See Chapter 16.80.
18 Exceptions for larger setbacks may include entrance courtyards, areas for outdoor dining, or for projects facing a residential district as determined through discretionary review.
19 For projects abutting a residential district, corresponding residential setback shall apply.
20 Maximum height is 35 feet or three stories, whichever is less; a maximum of up to 40 feet for mixed-use projects by discretionary action on lots larger than 20,000 square feet and where the building is not adjacent to a residential district.
21 Maximum height for mixed residential/commercial use is 35 feet or three stories, whichever is less.
22 A greater size may be allowed through the CUP process.
23 Except as otherwise permitted, required rear and interior side building setback areas shall be used only for landscaping, pedestrian walkways, driveways, off-street parking or loading, recreational activities or facilities, and similar accessory activities.
24 Except as otherwise permitted, a street-side building setback area shall be used only for landscaping, pedestrian walkways, driveways, or off-street parking.
25 Exceptions may include areas for outdoor sales determined through discretionary action.
Item 9.a. - Page 110
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
93
26 Structures typically built at back of sidewalk. Exceptions include entrance courtyards and areas for outdoor dining determined through discretionary review.
27 Commercial and mixed-use projects larger than 20,000 square feet: 200 square feet of publicly accessible open space is required for every 5,000 square feet of office or commercial spaces exclusive of areas for parking and driveways. See General Commercial and Mixed-Use Design Guidelines and Standards. General Plan Policies LU5-11. For mixed-use projects, refer to Section 16.48.065. Additional sign standards are found in Chapter 16.60.
28 See Design Guidelines and Standards. Parking is to be located behind buildings or to the side. Driveways along E. Grand Avenue shall be minimized by combining driveways, using alleys, or designing development so that access is provided from local streets. See Section 16.56.020.
29 See Design Guidelines and Standards. Please note General Plan Policies LU5-11. For mixed-use projects, refer to Section 16.48.065. Additional sign standards are found in Chapter 16.60.
30 See Design Guidelines and Standards. Parking is to be located behind buildings or to the side. Driveways along E. Grand Avenue shall be minimized when possible by combining driveways, using alleys, or designing development so that access is provided from local streets. See Section 16.56.020.
31 See Design Guidelines and Standards D-2.11 Exhibit ‘A’ for shared parking locations. See also Section 16.56.020. Exceptions allowed by Section 16.16.120.
32 See OMU-D-2.20. Please note General Plan Policy LU5-11. For mixed-use projects, refer to Section 16.48.065. Additional sign standards are also found in Chapter 16.60.
33 Minimum lot sizes may be reduced by two-thirds if the area reduction is devoted to common area, open space, green belt, or other recreational uses.
34 Per development plan.
Item 9.a. - Page 111
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
94
Building Code Requirements
The Arroyo Grande building requirements are based upon the latest version of the California
Building Code, which is a version of the International Building Code adopted by the state. The City
adopted Ordinance No. 679 in 2016, which amended the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Chapter 8.04 and 8.08 related to the adoption of the California Fire Code and International Fire
Code; and amended Chapter 15.04 related to the adoption of the California Building Code,
California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California
Plumbing Code, California Green Building Code, California existing Building Code, California
Energy Code, California Historical Building Code, and the International Property Maintenance
Code. The 2016 Ordinance also made a local amendment to Section 15.04.024 of the Municipal
Code regarding fire sprinklers. Code enforcement is complaint-based. If an infraction is found, the
enforcement officer provides a list of potential resources to the homeowner. The code ensures
safe housing and is not considered a significant constraint to housing production.
Inclusionary Housing
In 2000 (last amended in 2007), the City adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
(Development Code Chapter 16.80, Inclusionary Affordable Housing Requirements). To date, two
very-low income units have been entitled during previous planning periods, but otherwise,
applicants have chosen to pay the in-lieu fee described in the ordinance. To incentivize the
entitlement of affordable units, the City increased the housing in-lieu fee from 1 percent to 5
percent.
According to the ordinance, any residential development of two units or more is required to build
a certain percentage of the units as affordable, pay an in-lieu fee, or donate a suitable amount
of land. The required percentages are as follows:
• At least five percent very low-income units;
• At least 10 percent lower-income units;
• At least 15 percent moderate-income units where the proposed project is planned for
rental units or units that are not developed as a common interest development pursuant
to Civil Code Section 1351; or
• An equivalent combination as determined by the Community Development Director.
The inclusionary units can be owner-occupied or rental units and restrictions must be put in place
to maintain their affordability for at least 45 years for owner-occupied units and 55 years for rental
units. The determination whether an applicant constructs units, pays an in-lieu fee, or donates land
is made by the City Council on a project-by-project basis.
Allowances and incentives are available for projects with inclusionary units, including density
bonuses, fee waivers or reductions, modification of development standards, and technical
assistance from the City on applying for financial subsidy programs. Establishment of these
regulations has increased the supply of affordable housing in Arroyo Grande. Increased flexibility
during the review process and with project review costs are intended to offset increased costs
and time required to meet the requirements of this inclusionary section of the Development Code.
Program E.1-1 is proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of these regulations to date and amend
Chapter 16.80, Inclusionary Affordable Housing Requirements, as deemed helpful to increase
production of affordable units.
Item 9.a. - Page 112
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
95
Vacation Rentals
The City last updated their vacation rental regulations in 2014. These regulations can be found in
Section 16.52.230 and 240 of the Development Code. Vacation rentals and homestays are
permitted with an MUP in the RE, RH, RR, RS, SF, VR D-2.4, MF, and MFA zoning districts and are
prohibited in all other residential zoning districts. They are also permitted in the TMU D-2.11, VCD
HCO D-2.4, VMU D-2.11, HCO D-2.4, GMU, FOMU, HMU, and OMU 1 D-2.20 zoning districts and are
prohibited in all other commercial and mixed-use zoning districts. The property owner is required
to obtain an MUP-Plot Plan Review and a business license from the City. Vacation rental and
homestays must be at least 300 feet from any other vacation rental or homestay on the same
street. Additional performance standards and conditions are found in the Development Code
sections referenced above. The vacation rental and homestay regulations balance housing
needs of long-term residents with the mission of providing accommodations to visitors to the city.
Density Bonus Standards
The City’s density bonus program (Development Code Chapter 16.82) implements the state’s
Density Bonus Law. The purpose of the density bonus requirements is to increase the production
of affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate-income households as well as senior
housing and mobile home developments.
Developer concessions or incentives are granted for a residential project that meets the criteria
for a density bonus project. Incentives granted by the City include, but are not limited to:
• Flexibility in development standards;
• Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project;
• Leniency on parking ratios set forth in Government Code Section 65915; or
• Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the City or developer.
The City updated their density bonus program in 2007 to be consistent with updates to state law
before that year; however, amendments are required to bring regulations into compliance with
the changes made to state law since 2007. Therefore, Program A.10-1 is proposed to bring the
City into complete compliance with current state density bonus law.
Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing
State legislation SB 2 requires jurisdictions to permit emergency shelters without a CUP or other
discretionary permits, and transitional housing and supportive housing must be considered
residential uses and must only be subject to the same restrictions that apply to the same housing
types in the same zone. Ordinance No. 677 was adopted in April 2016 to amend the Development
Code to comply with state law regarding Emergency Shelters and Supportive and Transitional
Housing. Emergency shelters are allowed without discretionary review in the IMU and HMU zoning
districts. Operational standards for emergency shelters are located in Development Code Section
16.52.091. There are three vacant parcels in the HMU zoning district and the area of these parcels
is approximately 1.65 acres. The acreage of each of the three vacant parcels is .58, .07, and 1.00
acres. There are currently no vacant parcels in the IMU zoning district. In addition, there are 22.8
acres on 13 parcels on non-vacant sites in the IMU zoning district. Aside from the one non-vacant
site zoned HMU and the three vacant parcels, there are 68 parcels on 20.5 acres in the HMU zoning
district. Many of these parcels could potentially accommodate an emergency shelter in new or
repurposed buildings. The available sites in the overlay provide a sufficient number of options with
Item 9.a. - Page 113
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
96
a sufficient amount of acreage for shelter beds that could address the needs of the number of
homeless persons in the City. The Emergency Shelter Overlay zoning district is located in areas of
the City close to transit and services.
Accessory Dwelling Units
In the City’s Development Code, accessory dwelling units are described as either a detached or
attached dwelling unit that provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more
persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the
same parcel as the primary residence. Accessory dwelling units can be an important source of
affordable housing because they are smaller than primary units and they do not have direct land
costs. Accessory dwelling units can also provide supplemental income to the homeowner, for
example allowing the elderly to remain in their homes. Accessory dwelling units are permitted in
the RE, RH, RR, RS, SF, VR, MF, MFA, MFVH, and MHP zoning districts. Regulations specific to
accessory dwelling units are found in Development Code Section 16.52.150. The City amended its
zoning in 2017 to comply with updates to state legislation. However, additional legislation was
passed in late 2019 that the City will need to address in an amended accessory dwelling unit
ordinance. Program A.2-1 will bring the City into complete compliance with current state law
regarding accessory dwelling units.
Development Processing and Development Impact Fees
Like most cities in California, Arroyo Grande charges planning, building, and impact fees for
residential developments. Table 5-8 summarizes the planning fees charged by the Community
Development Department for processing residential applications. These fees are established by
the City Council to cover the staff and other costs associated with processing a housing
development application. These fees are comparable to other area jurisdictions and not
considered excessive.
The fees charged at the time of the issuance of a building permit for residential development
include standard building permit plan check and inspection fees as well as impact fees set by the
City. Building fees are set according to the types of permits processed under the Building Code
and represent the costs for plan review and inspection of the project construction. Given the
nature of these fees, they are not considered excessive in that they are essential to ensure the
health and safety of the project construction.
Impact fees cover the costs of infrastructure and public services. Given the current tax structure
the City must operate under, there are not adequate general funds to provide the services and
infrastructure necessary for new residential development as they place new demands and
impacts on the City’s infrastructure and services. Thus, development impact fees must be charged
to cover the development’s costs of the services or infrastructure requirements.
School impact fees that have been imposed by the local school district help cover their costs of
construction needed to support additional school population associated with new residential
development. Development impact fees increase the cost of housing, and proportionally,
affordable housing.
As an incentive to produce more affordable housing, the City eliminated or reduced
development impact fees for very low and low-income housing developments, including
accessory dwelling units. Water and sewer fees still apply.
Item 9.a. - Page 114
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
97
Table 5-8 Schedule of Typical Fees for Residential Development
Application Type Base Fees
Appeals
From Community Development Director to Planning Commission $ 491
From Planning Commission decision to City Council $ 1,163
Certificate of Compliance $ 3,512
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Major (Multi Building) $ 14,347
Minor – (Change of use or as otherwise determined by Director)) $ 6,212
Amendment $ 3,137
Development Agreement $ 24,024
Development Code Amendment
Major (Determined by Director) $ 16,187
Minor (Determined by Director) $ 8,901
EIR/Environmental Studies
Initial Study Fee $ 3,412
Negative Declaration (in addition to Initial Study Fee) $ 554
Mitigated Negative Declaration (in addition to Initial Study Fee) $ 2,318
General Plan Amendment
Major (Determined by Director) $ 16,187
Minor (Determined by Director) $ 8,901
Minor Use Permit
Architectural Review: Major (Determined by Director) $ 5,145
Architectural Review: Minor (Determined by Director) $ 923
Minor Exception $ 999
Plot Plan Review $ 735
Viewshed Review $1,130
Specific Plan
Deposit $ 23,978
Planned Unit Development
Major (Determined by Director) $ 15,261
Minor (Determined by Director) $ 7,301
Pre-Application Review $ 1,228
Planning Commission (per meeting) $ 1,810
Second Dwelling Unit (see CUP)
Tentative Parcel Map (>5 lots)
Base Fee (5–20 lots) $ 15,670
Base Fee (Over 20 lots) $ 18,190
Vesting $ 1,535
Amendment $ 6,879
Item 9.a. - Page 115
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
98
Table 5-8 Schedule of Typical Fees for Residential Development
Application Type Base Fees
Tentative Tract Map (<4 lots)
Base Fee $ 9.537
Vesting $ 591
Amendment $ 4,620
Source: City of Arroyo Grande. Community Development Department Application Fees, 2019.
Additionally, the City requires each newly constructed residential project to pay impact fees
related to the cost of providing public services.
Table 5-9 Schedule of Typical Development Impact Fees for Residential Development
Fee Single-Family Home Multifamily Home, Per Unit
Fire Protection $ 2,015 $ 181
Police Facilities $ 126 $ 222
Traffic Signalization $ 741 $ 519
Transportation Facilities $ 2,022 $ 1,415
Community Centers $ 149 $ 110
Park Improvements $ 2,573 $ 1,906
Water Facilities (1") $ 1,746 $ 1,746
School, per square foot $ 3.48 $ 3.48
Source: City of Arroyo Grande. Community Development Department, February 2020.
The total fees charged at Building Permit issuance for the average single family is approximately
$28,594 per unit, which includes building fees and impact fees. For multifamily projects, the
estimated building and impact fees are estimated at approximately $12,475 per unit. These fees
are one of the substantial costs of housing, but as noted above, these fees are either required
consistent with the building code, are needed to finance infrastructure or services, or serve as
mitigation for the project impacts.
Total fees comprise approximately 5.4 percent of the home purchase price (see Table 5-10). Given
the prices of housing in the City and fees in other jurisdictions, fees charged for residential
development are not a significant factor contributing to the high housing costs in the City.
Table 5-10 Proportion of Fee in Overall Development Cost for a Typical Residential Development
Development Cost for a Typical Unit Single
Family
Multiple
Family
Total estimated fees per unit1 $28,594 $12,475
Estimated development cost per unit2 $501,133 $249,697
Estimated proportion of fee cost to overall development cost per unit 5.7% 5.0%
Notes
1 Source: City of Arroyo Grande Application Fees, 2019 and Development Impact Fees, 2020.
Source: City of Arroyo Grande, 2020; Zillow, 2020, based on a one-half acre land cost and the median per-acre cost of land.
Item 9.a. - Page 116
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
99
Permit Processing Timelines
Permit processing times in Arroyo Grande are comparable to other cities in the county. Most of
the processing times are a result of state-mandated reviews and hearings, including the time
required for preparation of the required environmental documents. Projects requiring an EIR can
be processed in a year. Those not requiring an EIR may be processed in six months or less. While
application and permit processing times may seem excessive by some, they are generally
prescribed by law.
It should be noted that timelines can also change depending on if a proposed project is in a
Planned Development Area. Any project within a Planned Development requires City Council
approval. The 2001 General Plan Land Use Map eliminated reference to already developed
Planned Development (PD) areas but retained vacant areas. The Development Code and Zoning
Map were updated to rezone commercial properties located in Planned Development areas
from PD 1.1 and PD 1.2 to Regional Commercial (RC). This change results in shorter permit
processing timelines for commercial projects in developed PD areas.
The goal of the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department is to issue a decision
within the time periods listed in Table 5-11. These time periods begin when a complete application
is submitted and are extended when additional information is requested by the City. Applications
for building permits are usually submitted within one year once a project is fully entitled. To assist
applicants, the City provides the timeframes below for “target issuance date”—when an
applicant can expect a decision on their application, and an “initial comments due” date—when
they can expect to receive initial review comments from staff.
Typical built densities range in different zoning districts. Within the single-family zoning districts the
built density ranges from 0.4 dwelling units per acre in the Residential Estate zone, to 4.5 dwelling
units per acre in the Single Family zone. The typical density for the Condominium/Townhouse zone
is one dwelling per every 4,840 square feet, or the equivalent of 9 du/ac. The typical density for
the Multifamily Apartment zone is 3,111 sf per dwelling or the equivalent of 14 units per acre. The
typical density for the Multifamily Very High Density zone is 1,742 sf per dwelling or the equivalent
of 25 du/ac. The mixed-use zones allow various levels of density ranging from 15 dwelling units per
acre for 100% residential projects in the Office Mixed-Use zone to 25 dwelling units per acre for
mixed-use projects in the Fair Oaks Mixed-Use and Gateway Mixed-Use zoning districts. During the
fifth cycle planning period, the average residential density for all projects approved in mixed-use
zoning districts was 81 percent of the maximum density available.
The City did not receive any requests to develop at lower densities during the 5th cycle.
Table 5-11 Permit Processing Timeline
Permit Type Initial Comments Due: Target Issuance Date:
Minor-Use Permit (administrative)
(Formerly Viewshed, Plot Plan, Architectural Review,
and Minor Exception permits)
14 days 21 days
Temporary Use Permit (administrative) 7 days 14 days
Administrative Sign Permit (administrative) 7 days 14 days
Conditional Use Permit (discretionary) 30 days 180 days
Lot Line Adjustment (discretionary) 30 days 90 days
Item 9.a. - Page 117
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
100
Table 5-11 Permit Processing Timeline
Permit Type Initial Comments Due: Target Issuance Date:
Tentative Parcel Map (discretionary) 30 days 120 days
Tentative Tract Map (discretionary) 30 days 180 days
Development Code Amendment (discretionary) 30 days 180 days
General Plan Amendment (discretionary) 30 days 180 days
Specific Plan (discretionary) 30 days 1 year
Variance (discretionary) 30 days 90 days
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2020.
On- and Off-Site Improvement Requirements
Typical on- and off-site improvement requirements for residential subdivisions and/or mixed-use
projects are imposed as part of the approval process for a subdivision and/or CUP application.
Current improvement standards include submittal of the following improvement plans: Grading
and drainage; erosion control; street improvements; curb, gutter, and sidewalk; public utilities;
water and sewer; landscaping and irrigation. These improvement plan requirements are generally
based on health, safety, and to a lesser extent, aesthetic issues. As with land costs, several
variables affect the amount of site improvement costs, including site topography and proximity to
established roads and utilities. Minimum street widths vary for different street types. For a local road
the minimum width is 52 feet, for a residential collector it is 60 feet, for a collector 78 feet, for an
arterial 86 feet, and for a primary arterial 110 feet.
The City requires that curbs, gutters, and sidewalks be placed along the frontage of every lot on
which new construction is done. Many of these improvements, especially sidewalks, generally are
required to provide pedestrian access and access for the handicapped. These costs have been
estimated at $82 per linear foot for curb, gutter, and sidewalk for a standard single-family housing
subdivision. The City’s Municipal Code also requires any project that includes the addition of more
than 500 square feet of habitable space to place their utility service connections underground.
Applications for all tract and parcel maps, conditional use permits, and variances shall include
undergrounding all utilities as a condition of approval. While these costs contribute to the cost of
a housing unit, the improvements required by the City are typical of all cities in the state and do
not impose a significant constraint on the development of housing in the City. City regulations are
intended to generally encourage high-quality private development and new construction.
Improvement requirements also include off-street parking standards. Table 5-12 lists applicable
parking space requirements for residential developments. In certain situations, parking
requirements may be reduced or waived. This includes some alternative parking arrangement
options, such as common parking facilities and density-bonus parking reduction concessions. The
Development Code does not require bicycle parking for residential uses; however, the City does
encourage bicycle parking to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution problems.
Off-street disabled/handicapped parking is required in compliance with the California Building
Code and California Code of Regulations Title 24.
Item 9.a. - Page 118
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
101
Table 5-12 Residential Parking Standards
Residential Use Parking Standard
Single-family homes
Conventional size lot 2 spaces per unit within an enclosed garage
Small lot (PUD) 2 spaces per unit within an enclosed garage and 0.5 space/unit for visitor
parking
Duplexes 2 space per unit within an enclosed garage and 1 uncovered space per
unit
Second residential units 1 uncovered space per unit
Townhouse and condominiums (Attached ownership units)
RESIDENT AND VISITOR PARKING:
Studio 1 space per unit within an enclosed garage
1 bedroom 1 space per unit within an enclosed garage and .5 uncovered spaces per
unit for developments over four units.
2+ bedrooms 2 spaces per unit within an enclosed garage and 0.5 uncovered space per
unit for developments over four units.
Apartments and multifamily dwellings (rental units)
RESIDENT PARKING:
Studio 1 covered space per unit
1 bedroom 1 covered space per unit and 0.5 uncovered space per unit for
developments over four units
2+ bedrooms 2 covered spaces per unit and 0.5 uncovered space per unit for
developments over four units.
Senior housing - independent living
RESIDENT PARKING:
Studio 1 covered space per unit
1 bedroom 1 covered space per unit
2+ bedrooms 1 covered space per unit and 0.5 uncovered space per unit
Senior housing - assisted living 1 uncovered space per 3 beds and 1 space per employee on the largest
work shift
Mobile home parks 2.5 uncovered spaces per unit
Large family day care facilities 1 uncovered space per staff person other than the homeowner in addition
to the required parking for the residential building
Source: City of Arroyo Grande Development Code.
Constraints on Housing for Disabled Persons
As part of the governmental constraints analysis, state law calls for the analysis of potential and
actual constraints to the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons
with disabilities. Table 5-13 reviews the Development Code, land use policies, permitting practices,
and building codes to ensure compliance with state and federal fair housing laws. Where
necessary, the City proposes new policies or programs to remove constraints.
Arroyo Grande has not specifically adopted a reasonable accommodation policy or ordinance
to accommodate housing or access considerations for persons with disabilities. However, the City
Item 9.a. - Page 119
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
102
does follow California’s accessibility laws through the implementation of the California Building
Code.
Item 9.a. - Page 120
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
103
Table 5-13 Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Overarching and General
Does the City have a process for persons with
disabilities to make requests for reasonable
accommodation?
Arroyo Grande has not adopted a reasonable accommodation policy or ordinance for
persons with disabilities in the enforcement of development and building codes and the
issuance of building permits. However, the City allows retrofitting to increase suitability of
homes for people with disabilities. Program K.2-1 is proposed to create a reasonable
accommodation procedure for the City.
Has the City made efforts to remove constraints
on housing for persons with disabilities?
Group homes (residential care facility) of six persons or less are permitted by right in all
residential zoning districts in the City. Group homes of seven or more are permitted with a CUP
in the VCD, VMU, GMU, FOMU, and OMU mixed-use zoning districts.
Does the City assist in meeting identified needs?
The City works with service providers in the region to address and, if possible, help fund work
that addresses those with identified needs. Program K.1-1 commits the City to continue working
on addressing the needs of those with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.
Zoning and Land Use
Has the City reviewed all its zoning laws, policies,
and practices for compliance with fair housing
law?
Yes, the City has reviewed the land use regulations and practices and is in compliance with
fair housing laws.
Are residential parking standards for persons with
disabilities different from other parking standards?
Does the City have a policy or program for the
reduction of parking requirements for special
needs housing if a proponent can demonstrate a
reduced parking need?
Section 16.56.070 of the Development Code (Design and paving standards for off-street
parking facilities) mandates the provision of disabled parking spaces in accordance with
California Building Code (part 2 of Title 24) Chapter 11.
In certain situations, parking requirements may be reduced or waived. This includes some
alternative parking arrangement options, such as common parking facilities and density
bonus parking reduction concessions.
Does the locality restrict the siting of group
homes?
No. Group homes for less than six people are permitted by right in all residential zoning
districts.
What zones allow group homes other than those
allowed by state law? Are group home over six
persons allowed?
Group homes (referred to as Residential Care Facilities in the Development Code) of six or
less individuals are allowed by right in all residential districts. They are allowed in the VCD,
VMU, HCO, GMU, FOMU, and OMU districts with an MUP. Facilities with more than seven
residents are allowed in the VCD, VMU, HCO, GMU, FOMU, and OMU districts with a CUP.
Does the City have occupancy standards in the
zoning code that apply specifically to unrelated
adults and not to families?
No
Does the land use element regulate the siting of
special needs housing in relationship to one
another?
No. There is no minimum distance required between two or more special needs housing units.
Item 9.a. - Page 121
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
104
Table 5-13 Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Permits and Processing
How does the City process a request to retrofit
homes for accessibility?
Arroyo Grande allows residential retrofitting to increase the suitability of homes for people
with disabilities in compliance with ADA requirements, as permitted in the California Code.
Does the City allow groups homes with six or
fewer persons by right in single-family zoning
districts?
Yes.
Does the City have a set of particular conditions
or use restrictions for group homes with greater
than six persons?
Group homes with greater than six persons are allowed by CUP in the VCD, VMU, HCO, GMU,
FOMU, and OMU districts. They are subject to review by the architectural review committee
and are required to be incompliance with the same parking and site coverage requirements
as multifamily uses. The City does not have a set of conditions of approval for these facilities.
What kind of community input does the City allow
for the approval of group homes?
Group homes (or Residential Care Facilities) of six or less individuals are allowed by right in all
residential districts. They require no other planning approval other than to ensure that the
development conforms to the standards of the Development Code. The facilities with more
than seven residents are allowed in VCD, VMU, HCO, GMU, FOMU, and OMU districts with a
CUP. The CUP provides the public with an opportunity to review the project and express their
concerns in a public hearing.
Does the City have particular conditions for group
homes that will be providing services on site?
No, the City does not have special standards or conditions of approval for group homes
regarding services or operation.
Building Codes
Has the locality adopted the Uniform Building
Code?
Arroyo Grande has adopted the California Building Code. No amendments have been
made that affect the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.
Has the City adopted any universal design
element into the code? No.
Does the City provide reasonable
accommodation for persons with disabilities in the
enforcement of building codes and the issuance
of building permits?
Arroyo Grande allows for reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities in the
enforcement of building codes and issuance of building permits. Program K.2-1 is proposed
to create a reasonable accommodation procedure for the City.
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2020
Item 9.a. - Page 122
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
105
5.2 Environmental Constraints and Energy Conservation
The City adopted a General Plan Update in 2001. As part of the process of adopting the update,
a program EIR was prepared to address the environmental issues attributed to the growth
proposed. It is important to note that the General Plan Update evaluated residential growth that
is very similar to that included in the RHNA adopted for the City, except that the General Plan
assumes a longer planning period than the needs assessment. The General Plan Update EIR
concluded that there were three major environmental impacts that were significant and could
not be feasibly mitigated to less than significant: water availability, traffic/circulation, and air
quality. Thus, findings and statements of over-riding consideration were adopted. These critical
issues are considered constraints on residential development and are discussed herein, along with
other constraints anticipated.
Water Availability
According to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the City used 113 gallons per capita per
day in 2015. In calendar year 2019, the City used 2,138 acre-feet of water, which calculates to a
per-capita consumption of 108 gallons per person per day. If the per-capita consumption remains
at this level, the City’s buildout population of 20,000 would require an annual supply of 2,420 acre-
feet, which can be met with the current water supply. The City continues to offer free plumbing
retrofits, washing machine rebates, and commercial dishwashing machine rebates to customers.
City customers have reduced their per-capita consumption rate by 34 percent since 2013,
conserving 975 AFY. This effort, along with improved groundwater and surface water
management, coupled with the Central Coast Blue recycled water project, will provide Arroyo
Grande with a sustainable water supply for the foreseeable future. It is, therefore, anticipated that
current water resources will be sufficient to serve the increased population proposed by the
General Plan, and thus, adequate to serve the projected population proposed by the RHNA.
Traffic/Circulation
The General Plan Program EIR evaluated traffic impacts, both from proposed City development
as well as regional impacts of growth. The EIR concluded that many local streets and Highway 101
will be significantly impacted. It is difficult to estimate how significant Highway 101 impacts would
be during the timeframe of the General Plan in that the improvements required to serve much of
the undeveloped land in the southeast and south portions of the City are not yet planned and
likely will not be implemented until after the Housing Element planning period. However, there has
been planning progress for Highway 101 interchange improvements in the vicinity of Brisco Road.
Despite these planned improvements, additional development will cumulatively impact area
roadways and thus is another constraint to continued regional residential development, including
within the City.
Air Quality
Like traffic/circulation, air quality was determined in the General Plan Program EIR to be a
significant impact that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels. This is a cumulative
impact attributed to additional growth, thus may be considered a significant constraint to
continued residential regional development, including within the City.
Item 9.a. - Page 123
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
106
Flooding
Arroyo Grande is in a Mediterranean climate with a rainy season lasting from approximately
November to March. While rain is possible during other times of the year, these are months where
the most substantial rainfall occurs in the City. The waterways with potential for 0.1 percent (100
year) flood events include Canyon/Meadow Creek, Corbett Canyon, Tally Ho, Arroyo Grande,
and Los Berros Creeks. One of the greatest challenges for the City is managing flood risks that
begin upstream and outside City limits. One solution that has been implemented with the
cooperation of the San Luis Obispo County Resource Conservation District (RCD) is the creation
of a special zoning district. This RCD zoning district 1/1A provides funding for flood control projects.
Severe flooding events in 2003 indicated that additional flood control measures are required to
reduce the long-term risk.
Earthquakes and Ground-Shaking
There are two faults within the City limits – the Pismo Fault and the Wilmar Avenue Fault. The Pismo
Fault is an inactive fault and presents a low risk to Arroyo Grande. The Wilmar Avenue Fault is a
potentially active fault that runs through the City and follows Highway 101. California defines
potentially active as a fault that has experienced surface rupture within the last 1.6 million years.
According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Wilmar Avenue Fault presents a
moderate risk to the City.
The greatest risk to Arroyo Grande for ground-shaking is from the San Andreas Fault and the Hosgri
Fault. The San Andreas Fault historically has caused earthquakes greater than 8.0 in magnitude
and will likely cause future earthquakes of this magnitude. In December 2003, a 6.5-magnitude
earthquake from the Hosgri Fault struck northern San Luis Obispo County. This earthquake resulted
in two deaths and damage to 40 buildings.
There are 26 buildings identified under the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law in Arroyo Grande.
The existence of these buildings led to the City establishing a mandatory strengthening program
to reduce risk from these buildings. All 26 buildings are in compliance with the local strengthening
program.
Landslides
A majority of Arroyo Grande is at low risk for landslides. The areas at greatest risk are hillsides where
steeper slopes are located. The potential for slope stability hazards in valley areas is low to very
low. The areas at greatest risk for landslide are just north of Highway 101 in the hillsides and in the
eastern sections of Arroyo Grande.
Energy Conservation
Planning and design to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation
and green building features contributes to reduced housing costs as well as reduced greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. Energy-efficient community design can reduce dependence on
automobiles.
Item 9.a. - Page 124
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
107
Residential water heating and heating/cooling are major sources of energy consumption. With
the application of energy-efficient design and the use of solar power systems, home heating and
cooling can be operated on a more efficient and
sustainable level.
By encouraging solar energy technology for residential
heating/cooling in both retrofits and new construction, the
City can play a major role in energy conservation. There are
two distinct approaches to solar heating: active and
passive. The best method to encourage use of solar systems
for heating and cooling is to not restrict their use in the
zoning and building ordinances and to require subdivision
layouts that facilitate solar use.
Residential water heating can be made more energy
efficient through the application of solar water heating technologies. Solar water heating uses the
sun to heat water, which is then stored for later use; a conventional water heater is needed only
as a backup. Solar water heating systems can lower energy bills and reduce GHG emissions.
In response to legislation on global climate change, local governments are required to implement
measures that cut GHG emissions attributable to land use decisions. Executive Order S-E-05
initiated the first steps in establishing GHG emission reduction targets in California. This was
followed by the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), which required the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) to establish reduction measures.
In November 2011, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP). In conjunction with other San
Luis Obispo County jurisdictions, the City secured a $102,940 grant through the California Strategic
Growth Council for the “Central Coast Collaborative CAP Implementation and Monitoring
Program.”
The collaborative implementation and monitoring program is an innovative strategy that will help
the region achieve significant GHG reductions and allow them to track these reductions and
determine overall progress toward achieving state goals. The program will provide a user-friendly
tool to record data associated with CAPs and other GHG-reducing activities, which will result in
tangible data regarding the effectiveness of GHG reduction strategies. Therefore, if strategies are
not performing as well as initially expected, corrective action can be taken immediately to focus
efforts on achieving the largest GHG reductions at the lowest cost. This work program will also
include best practices for implementation of one of the GHG reduction strategies - an energy
audit and retrofit program. The tools and best practices developed as part of this work program
will provide valuable resources that can be implemented in other local and regional jurisdictions
across the state.
In addition to implanting GHG reduction programs as part of the CAP, there are several areas
where the City supports programs for energy conservation in new and existing housing units:
• Through application of state residential building standards that establish energy
performance criteria for new residential buildings (Title 24 of the California Administrative
Code and California Energy Commission requirements). These regulations establish
insulation, window glazing, air conditioning, and water heating system requirements.
Active Systems use mechanical
equipment to collect and
transport heat, such as a roof
plate collector system used in
solar water and space heaters.
Passive Systems use certain
types of building materials to
absorb solar energy and can
transmit that energy later,
without mechanization.
Item 9.a. - Page 125
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
108
• Through appropriate land use policies and development standards that reduce energy
consumption, such as promoting more compact, walkable neighborhoods, with housing
close to jobs, community facilities and shopping; planning and zoning for mixed-use and
higher-density development; and permitting accessory dwelling units.
The following opportunities for energy conservation are also available to the City, homeowners,
and developers:
• PG&E provides a variety of energy conservation services for residents and provides several
other energy assistance programs for lower-income households. These programs include
their Energy Watch Partnerships and the Charitable Contributions Program.
o The Energy Watch Partnerships help residents lower their energy bills and promote
cleaner energy production. Through this program, PG&E has extended the reach of
effectiveness of energy efficiency programs, and provided information about demand
response programs, renewable energy, and self-generation opportunities.
o The Charitable Contributions Program gives millions of dollars each year to non-profit
organizations to support environmental and energy sustainability. Projects include
residential and community solar energy distribution projects, public education
projects, and energy efficiency programs. The goal is to ensure that 75 percent of the
funding assists underserved communities, which includes low-income households,
people with disabilities, and seniors.
• PG&E also offers rebates for energy-efficient home appliances and remodeling. Rebates
are available for cooling and heating equipment, lighting, seasonal appliances, and
remodeling (cool roofs, insulation, water heaters). These opportunities are available to all
income levels and housing types.
• The Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007 (AB 1470) created a $250 million, 10-
year program to provide consumer rebates for solar water heating systems.
• Green Building Executive Order, S-20-04 (CA 2004), the Green Building Initiative, set a goal
of reducing energy use in public and private buildings by 20 percent by the year 2015, as
compared with 2003 levels. The initiative encourages residential development projects to
increase energy efficiency percentage beyond Title 24 requirements. In addition, projects
could implement other green building design (i.e., natural day lighting and on-site
renewable, electricity generation). The City could also consider adopting standards that
encourage or require specific LEED standards for green building.
• The California Solar Initiative required installation of 1 million solar roofs or an equivalent
3,000 megawatts (MW) by 2017 on homes and businesses, increased use of solar thermal
systems to offset the increasing demand for natural gas, use of advanced metering in solar
applications, and creation of a funding source that can provide rebates over 10 years
through a declining incentive schedule. The City should access the incentives that will be
made available and provide information to developers, to encourage the installation of
solar roofs on new residential development.
• Arroyo Grande will join Central Coast Community Energy to implement community choice
electricity sourcing beginning January 1,2021. Arroyo Grande will join most of the other
cities in the county and much of the rest of the central coast of California to source their
electricity from this company rather than PG&E in order to receive electricity from more
renewable sources. Transmission of electricity will still be via PG&E transmission lines.
Item 9.a. - Page 126
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
109
Program L.1-1 has been included to incorporate newly adopted state energy-efficiency standards
and to encourage alternative energy-efficient technologies.
5.3 Non-Governmental Constraints
This section provides information related to constraints to producing housing, specifically
affordable housing, that result not from governmental regulation, but from other forces affecting
the housing market. Primarily, this examines the economic factors that contribute to the price of
housing in Arroyo Grande. Other factors that affect housing costs that are not addressed are sales
and marketing costs, property taxes, and developer profits.
Land Costs
Land costs vary substantially based upon a number of factors. The main influences on land value
are location and zoning, and to a degree, available supply of land. Land that is conveniently
located in a desirable area that is zoned for residential uses will likely be more valuable, and thus
more expensive.
Based on a May 2020 survey of vacant parcels listed on Zillow.com, it is estimated that the median
cost per acre of unimproved residential zoned land in the City is $370,000, ranging between $4,248
per acre and $997,417 per acre. Currently, some of these vacant lots are in more rural areas and
are encouraged to be subdivided, potentially reducing the cost per acre. Improved lots can be
even more costly. The price varies due to the site zoning, with higher-density zoned land being
more expensive per acre (but less per unit). Land costs present a significant constraint to the
production of affordable housing in the City.
Construction Costs
Construction costs are those incurred in actually constructing a dwelling unit. These costs can vary
depending on the location or style of development. Important determinants of construction costs
include the amenities built into the unit, materials used, the prevailing labor rate (a significant issue
with subsidized affordable housing given recent legislation including SB 35), and the difficulty of
building on the site. In Arroyo Grande, expansive soils may necessitate more extensive foundations
for housing units. According to City records, the cost per square foot for construction in Arroyo
Grande is $140 per square foot.
Availability of Financing
The availability of financing affects the ability to purchase or improve homes. In the Arroyo Grande
area, 430 loan applications for home purchase or improvements were received in 2018, of which,
391 were conventional loans. Of the 391 conventional loan applications, 356 were for home
purchase and 35 were for home improvements. Only 7.7 percent of the 391 conventional loans
were denied, 6.6 percent were withdrawn or not accepted by the applicant, and 58.8 percent
were approved and accepted.
There were 39 applications for government-assisted home purchase or improvement loans (VA,
FHA, FSA/RHS) in 2018. Of these, 18, or 46.2 percent of government-assisted loans were approved
and accepted by the applicant. Table 5-14 shows the breakdown of loan applications by type,
purpose, and outcome.
Item 9.a. - Page 127
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
110
Table 5-14 Applications for Loans
Type of Loan Number Percent
Total 430 100.0%
Conventional 391 90.9%
Government-assisted 39 9.1%
FHA-insured 14 35.9%
VA-guaranteed 25 64.1%
Loan purpose
Conventional 391 100.0%
Home Purchase 356 91.0%
Home Improvement 35 9.0%
Government-assisted 39 100.0%
Home Purchase 38 97.4%
Home Improvement 1 2.6%
Loan Outcome
Conventional 391 100.0%
Approved and accepted 230 58.8%
Denied 30 7.7%
Withdrawn or not accepted 26 6.6%
Closed/Incomplete 10 2.6%
Purchased by Institution 60 15.3%
Government-assisted 39 100.0%
Approved and accepted 18 46.2%
Denied 5 12.8%
Withdrawn or not accepted 3 7.7%
Closed/Incomplete 1 2.6%
Purchased by Institution 10 25.6%
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 2018
Most (79.5 percent) applicants for government-assisted loans had an annual income equivalent
to or greater than the County median income of $71,148 in 2018. Similarly, over 92.6 percent of
conventional loan applicants earned greater than the County median income. Of all originated
loans, 4.4 percent were awarded and accepted by applicants with less than median household
income.
Item 9.a. - Page 128
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
111
CHAPTER 6 - REGIONAL VISION FOR HOUSING
In early 2020, local agencies adopted a San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact to
establish a united regional framework to unlock our potential to develop an adequate supply of
housing and infrastructure that support our economic prosperity.
Overview
San Luis Obispo County is a rural coastal county with seven vibrant cities and numerous
unincorporated communities that depend on collaborative relationships between and among
government agencies, community organizations, and residents to solve the region’s significant
issues, including inadequate supply of affordable housing and resilient water, wastewater, and
transportation infrastructure and resources.
The County and all seven cities are working collaboratively to develop the region’s first Regional
Infrastructure and Housing Strategic Action Plan (Regional Plan) that will identify actions to address
these issues. A key component of the Regional Plan is the integration of efforts to address critical
housing and related infrastructure needs. As part of the Housing Element update process,
representatives of the County, seven cities, and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) developed this section to showcase the ongoing commitment of each agency to this
collaborative effort. This section presents a regional vision and policies focused specifically on
fostering regional collaboration to plan and develop housing and supportive infrastructure.
Alignment with Regional Compact
This effort is guided by the San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact (Regional Compact).
The Regional Compact, adopted by each jurisdiction in early 2020, outlines six shared regional
goals to guide collaborative resolution of underlying housing and infrastructure needs:
Goal 1. Strengthen Community Quality of Life – We believe that our Region’s quality of life
depends on four cornerstones to foster a stable and healthy economy for all: resilient
infrastructure and resources, adequate housing supply, business opportunities, and
educational pathways.
Goal 2. Share Regional Prosperity – We believe that our Region should share the impacts
and benefits of achieving enduring quality of life among all people, sectors and interests.
Goal 3. Create Balanced Communities – We believe that our Region should encourage
new development that helps to improve the balance of jobs and housing throughout the
Region, providing more opportunities to residents to live and work in the same community.
Goal 4. Value Agriculture & Natural Resources – We believe that our Region’s unique
agricultural resources, open space, and natural environments play a vital role in sustaining
healthy local communities and a healthy economy, and therefore should be purposefully
protected.
Goal 5. Support Equitable Opportunities – We believe that our Region should support
policies, actions, and incentives that increase housing development of all types, available
to people at all income levels.
Goal 6. Foster Accelerated Housing Production – We believe that our Region must achieve
efficient planning and production of housing and focus on strategies that produce the
greatest impact.
Item 9.a. - Page 129
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
112
Policies
It will take regional collaboration and local actions to realize the vision and goals outlined in the
Regional Compact. Below is an initial list of aspirational regional policies that further the Regional
Compact vision, in addition to local policies. By listing these below, it does not mandate any
individual agency to implement actions, but rather offers ways that the County, cities, SLOCOG,
and other partners can consider moving forward together. In addition, and consistent with each
Housing Element cycle, each of the seven cities and the County has the opportunity to choose to
implement local policies and programs that help to support their achievement of its Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and if an agency chooses to, can also support the Regional
Compact vision and goals in a way that works for its jurisdiction and community. Please see
Chapter 2 above for a discussion of the local goals, policies, and programs that Arroyo Grande
anticipates undertaking during this Housing Element cycle.
R-1: Promote awareness and support of regional efforts that further housing and infrastructure
resiliency by using community engagement and consistent and transparent communication.
R-2: Encourage an adequate housing supply and resilient infrastructure, services, and resources
to improve the balance of jobs and housing throughout the region.
R-3: Develop inter-agency partnerships as appropriate to implement goals and policies related to
housing and infrastructure.
R-4: Coordinate state, federal, and other funding opportunities for housing and infrastructure
development throughout the region.
R-5: Encourage developers to sell newly constructed housing units to individuals residing or
employed within the area of the development (a city or the County) first before selling to
individuals from outside the County, to promote local preference.
R-6: Encourage rental units be prioritized for long-term residents rather than short-term users or
vacation rentals.
R-7: Support housing development that is located within existing communities and strategically
planned areas.
R-8: Encourage regional collaboration on a menu of housing types, models, and efforts to support
streamlined approvals for such developments (e.g., Accessory Dwelling Units, etc.).
Moving Forward
The County, cities, SLOCOG, and other partners engaged in housing and infrastructure
development will continue to collaborate on efforts moving forward – recognizing the benefits of
working together to achieve an enduring quality of life among the region’s people, sectors, and
interests. This ongoing collaboration will include learning from each other and sharing possible
tools, policies, and actions that can allow the collective region to move towards our adopted
Regional Compact vision. Ongoing collaborative efforts will be described in the Regional Plan,
anticipated to be complete in 2021, and related regional efforts will live outside of each individual
agency’s Housing Element.
Item 9.a. - Page 130
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
113
Chapter 7 – REVIEW OF THE PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT
This chapter evaluates and reports on the status and implementation of the programs of the 2014–
2019 Housing Element. The main purpose is to evaluate which programs were successful and
should be continued, and which programs were ineffective and should be eliminated or modified.
Table 6-1 includes the programs identified in the 2014–2019 Housing Element followed by a brief
evaluation or status comment.
Item 9.a. - Page 131
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
114
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
A.1-1. The City shall establish a five-year schedule of actions to implement
the goals and policies of the Housing Element.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Department
Timeframe: Ongoing – implemented over the life of the Housing
Element
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Timeline for implementing Housing Element
programs
Quantified Objective: n/a
An implementation schedule of goals and
policies are outlined in the Housing Element
but many of the programs associated with
these goals and policies have not yet been
implemented due to staff constraints. The
City will continue to implement programs
based on the timeframe under each
program. This program is not needed on
top of the information in each program.
Delete.
A.1-2. The City shall report annually on its progress in meeting its fair share
housing targets, and provide the collected information to the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD),
development community, and non-profit housing developers. HCD
provides specific instructions and a template for the annual report.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Annually – due to HCD in April
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Annual assessment and reporting on
progress meeting Housing Element housing targets and
implementation of programs
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City reports annually on progress
towards Housing Element implementation
and reaching the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) target.
Delete.
Item 9.a. - Page 132
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
115
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
A.1-3 The City shall amend the Development Code to revise the
requirements for the Traffic Way Mixed Use District to remove the
limitation to only live-work residential uses. A mix of residential use
types shall be allowed as allowed in all of the mixed use zoning
districts (except the Industrial Mixed Use District). The Development
Code shall also be amended to allow residential projects at
densities up to 20 units per acre in the Traffic Way Mixed Use District.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Development Code amendment
Quantified Objective: 10 moderate-income units, 10 above
moderate-income units
The City has not amended the
Development Code regarding the
limitations on uses. The densities for the
Traffic Way Mixed-Use District have also not
been amended. This is due to staff
constraints. This program will be continued.
Continue.
A.2-1. The City shall continue to encourage and publicize on the City’s
website the secondary dwelling program to increase public
awareness.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is continued consistent
production of secondary units as an affordable housing
alternative
Quantified Objective: 5 units/year during the planning period.
Total of 30 low-income units for the planning period.
The Development Code was updated in
October 2017 regarding accessory
dwelling units for compliance with state law
(Ordinance No. 688). The City has
continued to monitor impacts to accessory
dwelling units from short-term rentals.
Currently, the City provides information
about accessory dwelling units on the City’s
website, including development standards,
procedures, and fees. This program will be
continued and will include further
amendments to the ordinance to address
recent updates to state law.
Amend to address updates in
state law and add additional
City efforts to promote ADUs
and continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 133
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
116
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
A.3-1. The City shall amend the Municipal Code to provide incentives for
the development of affordable housing projects, including
expedited permitting, providing financial assistance through the
City’s Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund, requiring lot consolidation,
and providing greater flexibility in development standards.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element Adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Additional affordable units
Quantified Objective: 5 very low-income and 5 low-income units
The Municipal Code has not yet been
amended to include these incentives for
affordable housing projects. However,
impact fees have been reduced for
affordable housing projects. In addition,
the City has received funding through
Senate Bill 2 to revise zoning to streamline
review of affordable housing projects. This
program has not successfully been
implemented due to staff constraints and
will be continued.
Continue.
A.3-2. The City shall amend the Development Code to include the
definition of “Extremely Low-Income” as defined by Section 50093
of the California Health and Safety Code.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Development Code amendment
Quantified Objective: n/a
The definition of “extremely low-income”
has not yet been included in the
Development Code. Extremely low-income
households earn 30 percent or less of the
median household income. The City relies
on the County’s affordable housing
standards, which define extremely low-
income households. This does not need
inclusion in the City’s Development Code.
This program will not be continued.
Delete.
Item 9.a. - Page 134
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
117
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
A.3-3. The City shall amend the Development Code to provide additional
incentives specific for extremely low-income housing projects.
Incentives may include flexible standards for on- and off-site
improvements such as reduced parking requirements, reduced
curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirements; reduced or deferred water
and/or sewer connection fees; permit streamlining procedures and
development review; or financial incentives and assistance.
Responsible agency/department: City Manager/Administration
and Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Draft program or ordinance to incentivize
and/or streamline permitting and procedures for extremely low-
income housing developments
Quantified Objective: 2 extremely low-income units
The City has not yet amended the
Development Code regarding additional
incentives for extremely low-income
housing projects. The City continues to
monitor evolving state legislation
associated with housing to ensure this has
not been addressed or preempted. This
program will be continued.
Continue.
A.10-1 To facilitate affordable housing, the City shall comply with State
Density Bonus Law. The City shall update Development Code
Chapter 16.82 to comply with AB 2280. The City will continue to
update Chapter 16.82 on an ongoing basis to comply with any
future updates to State Density Bonus law (Government Code
Section 65915) as well as evaluate proposed Development Code
amendments to assess whether they pose any constraints to
developer utilization of density bonuses.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Amend Development Code Chapter 16.82 to
comply with AB 2280 – Within 1 year of Housing Element
adoption; Assess Development Code Amendments - Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
The City has not completed the
Development Code amendment to
comply with recent changes to State
Density Bonus Law due to staff constraints.
The City continues to comply with state law
and offers density bonuses to eligible
projects under state law. This program will
be continued.
Amend to reflect recent
updates to state law and
continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 135
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
118
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
Expected Outcome: City-initiated Development Code
Amendments
Quantified Objective: n/a
A.10-2. The City shall evaluate and amend the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Permit procedures in the Development Code (Section
16.16.060) to provide more predictable options for small lot infill
projects in the City’s Residential land use designations.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 2 year of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Improve the requirements and standards for
the PUD process
Quantified Objective: 10 moderate and 10 above moderate-
income units
The Development Code has not been
amended regarding the PUD permit
procedures due to staff constraints. This
program will be addressed as needed
through other programs and will not be
continued.
Delete.
A.10-3. To encourage higher densities and reduce constraints to multi-
family housing production, the City shall amend the Development
Code to allow densities up to 20 du/ac in the Office Mixed Use
(OMU) District for 100% multi-family housing projects with a Minor Use
Permit (MUP) subject to design review through the Architectural
Review Committee. Mixed-use projects will continue to have a
maximum allowed density of 20 du/ac.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Remove barrier to construct affordable
housing
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City has not completed the
Development Code amendment to allow
for increased density in the OMU District
due to staff constraints. This program will be
continued.
Continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 136
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
119
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
A.12-1. The City shall continue to maintain its Geographical Information
System (GIS) mapping and planning database inventory of vacant
and underutilized “opportunity sites”.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: On going
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Maintain land availability inventory
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City maintains a geographic
information system (GIS) database
inventory of vacant and underutilized
“opportunity sites.” This program has been
successfully implemented and will be
continued.
Continue.
A.14-1. The City shall amend the Development Code to include a definition
of the term “Attainable housing.”
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Development Code amendment
Quantified Objective: n/a
The Development Code has not yet been
amended to include the definition of
“Attainable Housing.” This effort will be
achieved through an “Affordable Housing”
program. The City envisions assessing
whether proposed projects include
“Attainable Housing” as applications are
submitted. This amendment to the
Development Code is not needed to
further affordable housing objectives. This
program will not be continued.
Delete.
Item 9.a. - Page 137
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
120
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
A.15-1. The City shall establish a program to provide assistance to first-time
home buyers.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund; HCD Home Investments Partnerships
Program (HOME)
Expected Outcome: Development of a first-time home buyers
program
Quantified Objective: n/a
In the years following the 2008 recession, a
number of the units originally restricted to
families earning a moderate income were
sold at market rate because the formula
used to determine sales price was such that
market rate prices were lower than
income-restricted prices. By default, the
program acted like a first-time home
buyer’s program. However, a formal first-
time home buyer program has not been
established. This program will be continued.
Continue.
B.1-1. The City shall continue tracking all residential projects that include
affordable housing to ensure that the affordability is maintained for
at least 45 years for owner-occupied units and 55 years for rental
units, and that any sale or change of ownership of these affordable
units prior to satisfying the 45 or 55-year restriction shall be “rolled
over” for another 45 or 55 years to protect “at-risk” units.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing – at time of change of ownership
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Program to monitor affordable units
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City tracks all affordable projects
through a database, inputting any updates
regarding ownership or affordability when
they occur. This program will be continued.
Combine with Programs E.4-1,
I.1-1, and I-2.1, update for
consistency with state law,
and continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 138
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
121
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
B.2-1. The City may contract with the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
(HASLO), local non-profit organizations, or a regional monitoring
agency for the monitoring of affordable units to ensure compliance
with terms of the development agreement.
Responsible agency/department: City Manager/Administration
and Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: Fees for service
Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is consistent monitoring
of affordable units.
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City has an agreement with the
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
(HASLO) for affordable housing eligibility
verification and compliance. The City is
also a member of the San Luis Obispo
County Housing Trust Fund (SLOCHTF),
which provides ongoing technical
assistance. This program will be continued.
Continue.
B.6-1. The City shall monitor the loss of permanent workforce housing from
vacation rentals and consider modifying the Development Code to
adjust for this loss.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Program to monitor vacation rentals
Quantified Objective: n/a
The Development Code prohibits
homestays and vacation rentals from being
located within 300 feet of an existing
homestay or vacation rental on the same
street. To date, the City has approved 33
homestays and 47 vacation rental
applications. The City has an increased
interest in monitoring rental loss due to state
housing legislation. The City will continue to
monitor the number of permits issued for
homestays and vacation rentals to
determine impacts to housing.
Amend to remove term
workforce and continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 139
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
122
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
C.1-1. The City shall continue to allocate financial resources to augment
extremely low, very low, and low-income housing development
based on the financial projection of the In-Lieu Affordable Housing
Fund.
Responsible agency/department: City Manager/Community
Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: Inclusionary Affordable Housing Trust Fund/Other
sources, as identified
Expected Outcome: Funding to finance affordable housing
Quantified Objective: 3 extremely low, 3 very low, and 20 low-
income units
The Inclusionary Affordable Housing Trust
Fund will continue to devote funds to
affordable housing projects for people of
extremely low, very low, and low income.
For instance, the Affordable Housing Trust
Fund was used to offset impact fees for a
Habitat for Humanity project approved in
2018. That project will construct eight single-
family residences that will be deed
restricted for very low-income households
and is expected to begin construction in
2020. This program will be continued.
Continue.
C.4-1. The City shall continue to meet with local non-profit and private
developers semi-annually, or more frequently if opportunities arise,
to promote the extremely low, very low, and low-income housing
programs outlined in the Housing Element. The City shall direct
private housing developers to funding sources (such as federal and
State housing grant fund programs and local housing trust funds) to
promote affordable housing as outlined in the policies of Goal C.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Semi-annually
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Increased awareness of the City’s desire to
provide affordable housing and to accommodate affordable
housing
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City continues to promote the
development of affordable housing
opportunities for people of extremely low,
very low, and low income, including
through its relationships with HASLO and
SLOCHTF. This program will be continued.
Continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 140
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
123
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
C.4-2. The City shall continue to participate in financial incentive programs
established by the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund
(SLOCHTF), such as a revolving loan program.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Semi-annually
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Increased awareness of the City’s desire to
provide affordable housing and to accommodate affordable
housing
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City continues to receive local housing
funding through the SLOCHTF. This program
will be continued.
Continue.
D.1-1. The City shall encourage specific plans for land within its Sphere of
Influence that include increased residential capacity for multiple-
family development.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: On-going, as specific plans are
approved
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Possible increased land inventory to support
affordable housing
No specific plans with multiple-family
development have been developed since
adoption of the previous housing element.
Multiple-family developments will continue
to be encouraged through specific plans.
This program will continue to be
implemented.
Continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 141
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
124
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
E.4-1. When necessary, the City shall continue to work with property
owners of deed restricted affordable units who need to sell within
45 years of initial sale. When the seller is unable to sell to an eligible
buyer within a specified time period, equity sharing provisions are
established (as per the affordable housing agreement for the
property) whereby the difference between the affordable and
market value is paid to the City to eliminate any incentive to sell the
converted unit at market rate. Funds generated would then be
used to develop additional affordable housing within the City.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Maintaining affordability of deed restricted
affordable units
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City will continue to support the
affordable housing agreement of
properties, working with property owners,
as needed, who need to sell deed-
restricted affordable units.
This program will be continued.
Combine with Programs B.1-1,
I.1-1, and I-2.1, update for
consistency with state law
and continue.
F.1-1. The City shall evaluate and amend the inclusionary affordable
housing requirements in the Development Code (Chapter 16.80)
based on experience using the requirements in producing
affordable units.
Potential changes to the requirements include: (1) consider
contracting with a housing management organization to manage
deed-restricted affordable units in the City; (2) consider adding
incentives to encourage construction of rental units; and (3)
investigate extending the income categories served by the
inclusionary requirements to extremely low income households. The
City will engage the development community during the
evaluation process.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 4 years of Housing Element adoption
The City has not amended the
Development Code regarding the
inclusionary affordable housing
requirements. This program will be
continued.
Combine with Program F-1.3
and continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 142
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
125
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Amendments to the inclusionary affordable
housing requirements
Quantified Objective: 2 extremely low, 5 very low, 10 low, and 15
moderate-income units
F.1-2. The City shall amend the inclusionary affordable housing
requirements in the Development Code (Chapter 16.80) to
eliminate inclusion of moderate-income units in the requirements.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Amendments to the inclusionary affordable
housing requirements
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City has not amended the
Development Code eliminating the
inclusion of moderate-income units in the
inclusionary affordable housing
requirements. The City does this in practice
through the subdivision process. Fees are
collected in-lieu of providing deed-
restricted moderate-income units. This
program is no longer needed and will not
be continued.
Delete.
F.1-3. The City shall amend the in-lieu fee as called for in the inclusionary
affordable housing requirements in the Development Code
(Chapter 16.80).
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Inclusionary In-lieu Fee
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City has not amended the
Development Code due to staff constraints
but has developed a preliminary
methodology to amending this in-lieu fee.
This program will be continued.
Combine with Program F.1-1
and continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 143
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
126
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
G.1-1. The City shall work with non-profit organizations to maintain a
mailing list of persons interested in development projects containing
affordable housing. Agendas for all City meetings related to these
projects shall be mailed to persons on the mailing list. The City shall
also continue to post the agendas on the City’s website.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Increased public awareness of affordable
housing projects.
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City publishes all meeting materials on
its website and encourages everyone to
sign up for notification when new agendas
are published. The City utilizes its contacts
at HASLO and SLOCHTF to help inform
interested individuals. This program will be
continued.
Continue.
G.1-2. The City shall encourage construction and/or rehabilitation of
housing units for low, very-low, and extremely low income
households by developing and implementing incentive-based
programs such as fee reductions, fee waivers, flexible development
standards, updating the City’s second unit ordinance to reduce
barriers to second units development in residential zones, and
similar programs.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Increased provision of affordable housing
Quantified Objective: 2 extremely low, 2 very low, and 2 low-
income units
The City has updated its accessory dwelling
unit ordinance and will adopt new
amendments consistent with changes in
state law. The City has not developed
incentive-based programs due to staff
constraints. This program will be continued.
This program overlaps with several other
programs and is not needed in the
updated housing element. This program will
not be continued.
Delete.
Item 9.a. - Page 144
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
127
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
G.1-3. The City shall amend the Development Code to allow
development of up to 15 multiple-family attached units in the MF
and MFA zoning districts with a Minor Use Permit (MUP) subject to
design review through the Architectural Review Committee.
Development of over 15 multiple-family attached units in the MF
and MFA zoning districts shall require a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP).
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Remove barrier to construct affordable
housing
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City has not amended the
Development Code. This program will be
continued.
Amend and continue.
H.1-1. The City shall continue to coordinate with the San Luis Obispo
Housing Authority to maintain and expand Section 8 rental housing
assistance to qualified households.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing, when eligible
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Continued affordable housing.
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City coordinates with HASLO regarding
Section 8 housing assistance when
needed.
This program will continue to be
implemented.
Continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 145
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
128
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
H.1-2. The City shall develop a program to offer housing developers an
alternative to meet affordable housing requirements by
contributing some “sweat equity” on projects where existing
housing units will be rehabilitated or conserved as affordable as per
the City’s Affordable Housing Program.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Conservation and rehabilitation of existing
housing stock
Quantified Objective: 5 low-income housing units
Opportunities are evaluated on a case-by-
case basis. This program will be continued.
Continue.
H.2-1. The City shall continue to consider abatement of unsafe or
unsanitary structures, including buildings or rooms inappropriately
used for housing, contrary to adopted health and safety codes.
Where feasible, the City will encourage rehabilitation and allow
reasonable notice and time to correct deficiencies. Where
necessary and feasible, extremely low, very low and low-income
residents displaced by abatement action shall be eligible for
relocation assistance, subject to Council approval.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Conservation of existing housing stock
Quantified Objective: n/a
This is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
This program will be continued.
Continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 146
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
129
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
I.1-1. Written notice shall be required prior to the conversion of any units
for low-income households to market rate units in any of the
following circumstances:
• The units were constructed with the aid of government
funding
• The units were required by an inclusionary zoning
ordinance
• The project was granted a density bonus
• The project received other incentives
The property owner should work with the City and affordable
housing developers, such as HASLO, to identify qualified buyers
and/or funding prior to conversion. In cases where conversions
occur, notice shall at a minimum be given to the following:
• The City of Arroyo Grande
• State Department of Housing and Community
Development
• San Luis Obispo Housing Authority
• Residents of at-risk units
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Preservation of existing affordable units
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City maintains a database of restricted
units that is leveraged to determine when
these situations arise. This program will be
continued.
Combine this program with
Programs B.1-1, E-4.1, and
I-2.1, amend to comply with
state law and continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 147
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
130
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
I.2-1. The City shall annually monitor the status of affordable housing
developments. If any property owners indicate plans to convert
affordable units to market rate pricing, or if the City identifies market
conditions indicating potential for “at risk” unit conversion, the City
will contact qualified non-profit organizations or other agencies
and explore opportunities to assist and facilitate the transfer
ownership of “at risk” units.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Preservation of existing affordable units
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City monitors the development of
affordable housing, classifying the
development of new units based on
income brackets of very low, low,
moderate, and above moderate.
The City will continue to ensure the
availability of affordable housing units for
people of very low and low income. This
program will be continued.
Combine this program with
Programs B.1-1, I.1-1, and
E-4.1, amend to comply with
state law and continue.
J.1-1. The City shall continue to promote housing opportunities for seniors
and other special needs groups by identifying sites suitable for
senior and transitional housing and considering other incentives to
promote senior and transitional housing. Single-room occupancy
units (SROs) shall be added to the use tables in the Development
Code allowed in all Mixed-Use zones with a conditional use permit.
SROs shall be allowed in the MFVH zone district with a minor use
permit.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Identifying sites - Ongoing; Development Code
Amendments – Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Increased housing opportunities for seniors
and other special needs groups
Quantified Objective: 5 extremely low and 10 very low-income
units
Within the planning period, a senior living
project consisting of 69 beds was approved
and staff processed a pre-application for
another senior living complex consisting of
120 beds. Staff provided feedback on
constraints of the site. No further
implementation has occurred. The
program will be continued.
Continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 148
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
131
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
J.5-1. To encourage farmworker housing, the City will amend the zoning
ordinance to identify farmworker housing as a residential use in the
use tables. The City Zoning Ordinance will be amended to ensure
that permit processing procedures for farmworker housing do not
conflict with Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5, which states
that farmworker housing for six or fewer employees should be
“deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use
designation”, and 17021.6 which states that for "employee housing
consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or
spaces designed for use by a single family or household...no
conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance
shall be required of employee housing of this employee housing
that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same
zone”.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Increased housing opportunities for
farmworkers
Quantified Objective: 5 very low-income units
The City has not amended the
Development Code due to staff
constraints. This program will be continued.
Continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 149
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
132
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
K.1-1. The City shall continue to participate in the South San Luis Obispo
County working group cooperating with other cities, the county
and other agencies in the development of programs aimed at
providing homeless shelters and related services.
Responsible agency/department: Community
Development/City Manager
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Continued cooperation in providing
homeless shelter and services
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City continues to work with the County
and other relevant agencies in providing
homeless shelters and related services. The
City provides grant funding to the 5 Cities
Homeless Coalition through its allocation of
Community Development Block Grant
federal funds and through the City’s Jim
Guthrie Community Service Grant Program
for homeless services. This program will be
continued.
Continue.
K.2-1. The City shall amend the Development Code to allow emergency
shelters without a conditional use permit or other discretionary
permits in appropriate locations in compliance with SB 2, the “Fair
Share Zoning” law. The Development Code amendment shall
include a definition for “emergency shelter.” Emergency shelters
are currently not allowed in commercial mixed-use districts, and are
allowed through the Conditional Use Permit process in the
Condominium/ Townhouse (MF), Apartments (MFA) and Multifamily
Very High Density (MFVH) residential districts. The Development
Code shall be updated to require administrative approval only for
emergency shelters in the Industrial Mixed-Use (IMU) and Highway
Mixed-Use (HMU) districts. These commercial districts have sufficient
capacity to house emergency shelters with approximately 18 acres
of vacant or underutilized land available. The IMU district has
several large parcels totaling almost 13.5 acres with ten (10) acres
that are currently used as storage and/or construction yards with
small or no permanent structures. The HMU district has less potential,
although there are about four acres with a couple of large vacant
parcels totaling 1.64 acres. About 6.36 of the 18 acres have some
type of permanent structure on the individual parcels, but could be
redeveloped to accommodate transitional housing. Transitional
Ordinance No. 677 was adopted in April
2016 to amend the Development Code
regarding Emergency Shelters and
Supportive and Transitional Housing. This
program has been implemented.
Delete.
Item 9.a. - Page 150
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
133
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
and supportive housing shall be defined as residential uses subject
to the same standards that apply to other housing.
The Development Code can include locational and operational
criteria for emergency shelters such as:
• Proximity of public transit, supportive services, and
commercial services;
• Hours of operation;
• External lighting and noise;
• Provision of security measures for the proper operation and
management of a proposed facility;
• Measures to avoid queues of individuals outside proposed
facility; and
• Compliance with county and State health and safety
requirements for food, medical, and other supportive
services provided onsite.
Such criteria can act to encourage and facilitate emergency
shelters and transitional housing through clear and unambiguous
guidelines for the application review process, the basis for approval,
and the terms and conditions of approval.
The City will solicit input from local service providers and the South
San Luis Obispo County working group in the preparation and
adoption of the amendment to the Development Code to ensure
that development standards and permit processing will not impede
the approval and/or development of emergency and transitional
housing.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Concurrently with Housing Element adoption (per
Government Code Section 65583(a)(4))
Funding: General Fund
Item 9.a. - Page 151
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
134
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is compliance with SB 2
regarding emergency shelters.
Quantified Objective: n/a
K.2-2. The City shall amend the Development Code to define transitional
and supportive housing as residential uses per Section 65582 of the
Government Code subject to the same standards that apply to
other housing in the same zone.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is compliance with
Housing Element law regarding transitional and supportive
housing.
Quantified Objective: n/a
Ordinance No. 677 was adopted in April
2016 to amend the Development Code
regarding Emergency Shelters and
Supportive and Transitional Housing. This
program has been implemented.
Delete.
K.2-3. The City may consider implementing an overnight parking program,
or a similar program, for the homeless in appropriate zoning districts.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Provide approved parking locations for the
homeless to sleep
Quantified Objective: n/a
An overnight parking program has not yet
been established. This program will be
continued.
Amend and continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 152
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
135
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
L.1-1. The City shall explore models to encourage the creation of housing
for persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.
Such models could include coordinating with the Tri-County
Regional Center and other local agencies in encouraging
affordable housing projects to dedicate a percent of housing for
disabled individuals; assisting in housing development; providing
housing services that educate, advocate, inform, and assist people
to locate and maintain housing; and models to assist in the
maintenance and repair of housing for persons with developmental
disabilities.
Responsible agency/department: Building
Department/Community Development
Timeframe: Establish a model program within 5 years of Housing
Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Increased access to housing and housing
resources for disabled persons; including information and
services available for developmentally disabled persons
Quantified Objective: 5 low income units
The City has not coordinated with the Tri-
Counties Regional Center. However, the
City will continue to explore models to
encourage development of housing for
persons with disabilities. This program will
continue to be implemented.
Continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 153
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
136
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
L.2-1. The City shall create a policy or amend the Development Code to
provide persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing an
opportunity to request reasonable accommodation in the
application of City building and zoning laws.
Responsible agency/department: Building
Department/Community Development
Timeframe: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Greater accessibility for disabled persons
accommodated through the design review process for
discretionary residential projects
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City has not amended the
Development Code to provide an
opportunity to request reasonable
accommodation for persons with
disabilities due to staff constraints. This
program will be continued.
Continue.
L.2-2. The City will have brochures on universal design available at the
Community Development Department front counter. The City will
also consider updating the building code to encourage use of
universal design in home design. Universal design is based on the
precept that throughout life, all people experience changes in their
abilities. The goal of universal design is to provide environments that
are usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the
need for specialization in design and construction and/or facilitate
change in occupancy over time.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Develop brochure(s) - within 1 year of Housing
Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Greater accessibility for disabled persons
accommodated through project design
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City has not yet made progress
promoting the universal design concept
but discusses the topic with residential
developers when the opportunity presents
itself. Due to limitations on staff resources,
this program will not be continued.
Delete.
Item 9.a. - Page 154
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
137
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
M.1-1. The City shall continue working to implement a water and electrical
retrofit program for existing housing units. A plumbing retrofit
program was established in 2004, and water conservation rebate
programs were established in 2009. The City will continue to work
with PG&E and other agencies to establish an electrical retrofit
program.
Responsible agency/department: Building Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund/PG&E
Expected Outcome: Reduce usage of water and electrical
resources
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City has continued to promote Water
Conservation Incentive programs,
including the Plumbing Retrofit Program, as
well as rebate and education programs.
The City has also been involved in the San
Luis Obispo County Energy Watch, a joint
project between San Luis Obispo County,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and
Southern California Gas Company. In 2013,
the City adopted a Climate Action Plan
and partnered with San Luis Obispo County
jurisdictions to receive a California Strategic
Growth Council grant to develop an
implementation and monitoring program.
The program provides tools and best
practices for implementing all Climate
Action Plan (CAP) programs, such as the
energy audit and retrofit program. This
program will be updated to reflect current
program information and continued.
Amend and continue.
M.1-2. Consistent with Measure E-4 of the City’s Climate Action Plan, the
City shall establish a program to allow residential projects to receive
minor exceptions if they meet 25% of items on the Tier 1 list of the
California Green Building Code (Title 24) or 15% of items on the Tier
2 list of that code.
Responsible agency/department: Building Department
Timeframe: Establish program within 1 year of Housing Element
adoption
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Encourage energy efficiency in new
residential buildings
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City has yet to establish a program
regarding minor exceptions for residential
projects that meet a minimum number of
items from the California Green Building
Code. This program will be continued.
Continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 155
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
138
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
N.1-1. The City will continue to promote the enforcement of policies of the
State Fair Employment and Housing Commission, and shall resolve
housing discrimination complaints through assistance from HUD,
and/or local, regional private fair housing organizations. The City will
prepare a brochure that promotes equal housing opportunities and
addresses discrimination. The brochure will be available at the
Community Development department and a link to download the
brochure will be placed on the City’s website. In addition the City
shall disseminate information in one or more of the following ways
to ensure the public is aware of Fair Housing Law:
• Distribute materials to property owners and apartment
managers twice a year.
• Make public service announcements through multiple
media outlets including newspaper, radio, television, and
social media to run on a regular basis.
• Conduct public presentations with different community
groups once or twice a year.
Responsible agency/department: All City Departments
Timeframe: Ongoing. Brochure available within one year of
housing element adoption, strategy to implement Urban County
Team fair housing program within one year of County Fair
Housing Plan adoption.
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Dissemination of information at the front
counter of all City Departments.
Quantified Objective: n/a
The City has not yet prepared a brochure
to promote equal housing opportunities
and address discrimination or disseminated
information about the Fair Housing Law to
the public. This program will be continued.
Continue.
Item 9.a. - Page 156
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
139
Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs
Program
Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in
2020–2028 Housing Element?
O.1.1. Prior to any public hearing where the City is considering amending
or updating its Housing Element or housing policies, the City will
notify all local housing organizations, as well as social service
agencies, and post notices at significant locations.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Provide information about housing
programs
Quantified Objectives: n/a
The City will continue to notify the
necessary organizations, agencies, and
other parties when amending or updating
the Housing Element or housing policies.
This program will be continued.
Continue.
P.1-1. Following amendment of the General Plan Conservation/Open
Space and Safety Elements to comply with AB 162 related to
floodplain mapping, the City will amend the Housing Element if
needed for consistency.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Within 1 year of updates of the General Plan
Conservation and Safety Elements
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Consistency between General Plan
elements related to floodplain mapping and associated
constraints.
Quantified Objectives: n/a
The City has not yet amended the General
Plan Conservation and Safety Elements to
comply with Assembly Bill 162 due to staff
constraints. Following any amendments,
the Housing Element will be modified, as
necessary. This program will be
implemented when those elements are
updated but will not be continued as a
Housing Element program.
Delete.
Item 9.a. - Page 157
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
140
Item 9.a. - Page 158
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
141
Appendix
Item 9.a. - Page 159
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
142
Appendix A: Public Outreach List
Organization/Name
Homebuilder’s Association Central Coast Government
Affairs Committee
Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo
SLO County YIMBYs
First 5 SLO
People’s Self Help Housing
5 Cities Homeless Coalition
South County Chamber of Commerce
Economic Vitality Corporation
Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County
(CAPSLO)
California Rural Legal Assistance – SLO Office
Item 9.a. - Page 160
Item 9.a. - Page 161
P.O. Box 1316
San Luis Obispo, California 93406
t 805.457.5557
www.placeworks.com
Item 9.a. - Page 162
December 2020 | General Plan EIR Addendum
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
SCH No. 2000121027
FOR THE
2020–2028 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
City of Arroyo Grande
Prepared for:
City of Arroyo Grande
Andrew Perez, Associate Planner
300 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
805.473.5425
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Amy Sinsheimer, AICP, Senior Associate
P.O. Box 1316
San Luis Obispo, California 93406
805.439.1922
info@placeworks.com
www.placeworks.com
EXHIBIT B
ATTACHMENT 3
Item 9.a. - Page 163
Item 9.a. - Page 164
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
Table of Contents
December 2020 Page i
Section Page
1. ADDENDUM TO THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN EIR ............................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 GENERAL PLAN EIR ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM ......................................................................................................... 20
2. CEQA ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 22
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 22
1.6 FINDING .............................................................................................................................................................. 23
Table Page
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR .............................................. 3
TABLE 1-2 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM CHANGES BETWEEN EXISTING HOUSING ELEMENT AND
2020–2028 HOUSING ELEMENT ................................................................................................... 7
Item 9.a. - Page 165
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Item 9.a. - Page 166
December 2020 Page 1
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
1.1 BACKGROUND
The proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element (proposed project) will replace the existing 2014–2019 Housing
Element and serve as the City of Arroyo Grande’s (City’s) guiding policy document to meet future housing
needs for City residents at all economic levels. The Housing Element is only one of the 10 elements of the
General Plan. This document serves as the environmental documentation for the City’s proposed 2020–2028
Housing Element update. This addendum to the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2000121027) demonstrates that the analysis in that EIR adequately
addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and that none
of the conditions exist that are described in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section
15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
From the introductory remarks of the General Plan, the General Plan is the foundation development policy
document of the City of Arroyo Grande. It defines the framework by which the physical, economic, and human
resources of the City are to be managed and utilized over time. By providing a basis for rational decision-
making, this document guides civic decisions regarding:
• land use and circulation;
• the design and/or character of buildings, open spaces, streets and other features;
• the conservation of existing housing and the provision of new dwelling units;
• the provision of supporting infrastructure and public services;
• the protection of environmental resources and agricultural uses;
• the protection of residents from natural and human-caused hazards; and,
• topics of other elements.
The General Plan acts to clarify and articulate the intentions of the City with respect to the rights and
expectations of the public, property owners, and prospective investors and business interests. The Plan informs
these citizens of the goals, objectives, policies, and standards for development of the City of Arroyo Grande
and the responsibilities of all sectors in meeting these. While the General Plan EIR did not address the current
or proposed Housing Element, the policies in the General Plan address all physical development in Arroyo
Grande.
As a policy document, the Housing Element does not result in physical changes to the environment but
encourages the provision of affordable housing within the housing development buildout projected within the
existing land use designations in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. None of the policies in the
proposed project would change the existing land use pattern as established by the General Plan and evaluated
in the EIR. All future construction within the city must comply with the General Plan, development code, state
Item 9.a. - Page 167
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
Page 2 PlaceWorks
and federal permits, and local development standards. In addition, future discretionary actions (e.g., use permits,
site plan review) require independent and project-specific environmental review.
1.2 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The General Plan EIR found that with the implementation of policies and programs from the General Plan,
the following environmental topic areas would be mitigated to less than significant: Land Use and Planning,
Population and Housing, Geophysical, Water, Biological Resources, Hazards, Public Services, Utility and
Service Systems, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, and Recreation. The General Plan EIR found the following
topics not significant: Noise and Energy and Mineral Resources.
Additionally, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts to the following: Water Resources, Air Quality, and Transportation and
Circulation.
Item 9.a. - Page 168
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
December 2020 Pa ge 3
Table 1-1 below provides a summary of the program impacts. This table identifies mitigation measures recommended in response to subarea and project
impacts identified in the EIR and a determination of the level of significance of the impact after mitigation.
Table 1-1 Summary of Program Impacts Identified in the EIR
Environmental Impact Topic – Area Less Than Significant
Area of Potential Significance –
Project Mitigation Measures General Plan Policy Mitigation Impact After Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Developed areas of the City will remain unchanged from the 1990
General Plan and existing use, except within 12 Land Use Study
subareas identified. Change areas are mitigated by proposed
alternative, General Plan policy, or requirement for project EIR.
Less than significant impacts determined for following study
areas:
1) Oak Park Acres at James Way-Church and school classified
CF.
5) Printz, Noyes and Oak Park Roads–Northern Sphere of
Influence (SOI)–Exclude 700+ acres from SOI, retaining 60 acres
on Highway 227.
6) Camino Mercado–cemetery classified CF. Other lots classified
MU-PD–less than significant except possible regional commercial
uses.
7WN&E) Village Core expansion to exclude existing residential
areas classified SFR-MD areas to be SFR-MD. 7W&S) Village
Area former HC and GC zoned areas classified MU. Southeast of
Cherry retained Agriculture except hill area SFR–LD&C/OS.
7E) Former RR classified 21 acres area on Myrtle & Cherry to be
SFR-LD, LM or MD: 20, 50 or 95 ± dwelling units potential vs. 20
dwelling units at prior = Less than significant assuming Agriculture
buffer.
9) Valley Road Agriculture to remain outside SOI classified
County Agriculture.
10) Farrall Avenue 10 acres at SFR-LM or MD, 25 to 45 dwelling
units.
11) East Grand Avenue Mixed-Use Corridors—exclude existing
residential areas classified SFR-MD.
12) El Camino Real existing industrial, commercial office, and
residential uses classified MU.
Land Use Study Areas involving potentially significant
impacts–Require project EIRs to resolve mitigation
measures:
2) Rancho Grande–Noyes Road 53 acres at SFR-LD-PD
& C/OS = 35 dwelling units maximum.
3) Rancho Grande-La Canada 27 acres at CLOS-S-PD-
5 dwelling units maximum (Require EIR if General Plan
Amendment [GPA] for more than 5 dwelling units PD).
4) Royal Oaks estates 37 acres at SFR-LD-PD&C/OS =
20 dwelling units maximum.
5) Northern SOI 60 acres at SFR-LD-PD = 60 dwelling
units maximum.
6) Camino Mercado (Regional Commercial uses may
require project EIRs).
7E) Myrtle & Cherry 21 acres at SFR-MD = 95 dwelling
units maximum. Require EIR and PD if GPA for more than
SFR-MD-PD.
8) Frederick/ALC & Williams SOI classified SP & SP
Reserve. Require EIR prior to development or
annexation.
10) Farrall Avenue 10 acres at SFR-MD-PD or MFR-PD
if GPA for more than 45 dwelling units may require project
EIR.
11) East Grand Avenue Mixed Use area projects may
require project EIRs.
12) El Camino Real commercial or industrial use projects
may require project EIRs, depending on new uses.
1) LU 9.
2) LU 2-2 and LU 10.
3) LU 2-2 and LU 10.
4) LU2-2 and LU 9.
5) LU Fringe 1.2, 1.3, 1.4,
1.5 and 1.6.
6) LU 5 and LU 10 .
7WN&E) LU 2-4 .
7W&S) LU 5 .
7E) LU 2-3.
8) LU 10 = LU 11 and LU 11-6.10.
9) Ag 1, Ag 3, Ag 4, Ag 5, Ag 6 .
10) LU 2-3, LU 10, LU 11.
11) LU 5.
12) LU 5; All LU 12.
Less than Significant.
Population and Housing
2001 General Plan Update Build-out same as 1990. Population
under 20,000 does not exceed resources or
regional projections.
No significant displacement of existing housing. Require
studies for projects more than 20 dwellings. Require
project EIR for more than 40 dwelling units or sensitive
sites.
Housing Element. Less than Significant.
Item 9.a. - Page 169
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
Page 4 PlaceWorks
Environmental Impact Topic – Area Less Than Significant
Area of Potential Significance –
Project Mitigation Measures General Plan Policy Mitigation Impact After Mitigation
Geophysical
2001 General Plan Update integrates Safety Element policies.
Increased landslide and erosion exposure in certain hillside
development areas. Seismic hazards mitigated by construction
standards.
2) Rancho Grande–Noyes Road.
3) Rancho Grande–La Canada.
4) Royal Oak Estates-Require Project EIRs or geo study.
5) Northern SOI–Highway 227.
8) Fredericks/ALC and Williams-Require Specific Plans &
EIRs.
Safety Element. Less than Significant.
Water Resources
20,000 population and development capacity of 2001 General
Plan Update may exceed 3,490-acre feet available water
resources unless per capita consumption limited to 160 gallons
per day. Also dependent on other jurisdictions, Agricultural use,
and County Residential and Suburban water use not exceeding
current levels. Safe yield and allocations unresolved. Cumulative
storm drainage degradation to water quality from certain projects.
Arroyo Grande groundwater basin allocations and safe
yield unresolved. Regional uses appear to exceed
resources: potentially significant. Initiate regional
groundwater study and resource allocations now to
enable mitigation/resource management before
permanent damage.
Land use study areas with drainage concerns include:
2) Rancho Grande–Noyes Road.
3) Rancho Grande–La Canada.
4) Royal Oak Estates.
8) Fredericks/ALC and Williams.
11) East Grand Avenue Mixed-Use.
12) El Camino Real Mixed-Use.
Conservation Element. Potentially significant:
Requires Statement of
Overriding Considerations
for approval.
Less than Significant.
Air Quality
2001 General Plan Update similar to 1990 General Plan in build-
out and land use: state ozone standard still exceeded. Update
population projection for Arroyo Grande after 2010 exceeds
18,676 and requires Clean Air Plan amendment to reduce County
fringe and South County growth. Mixed Use and compact
community development would reduce trips and vehicle miles
traveled vs. suburban sprawl.
Arroyo Grande growth beyond 18,676 population in 2010
requires CAP amendment, but current plan allows more
sprawl than proposed by 2001 Update. Transportation
management strategies to encourage increased
alternative circulation modes uncertain.
Land Use Element, Circulation
Element, Conservation Element,
CAP Amendment to address
regional issue.
Potentially significant due
to current non- attainment
future CAP amendment,
and uncertain
Transportation
Management Strategies on
regional basis: requires
Statement of Overriding
Considerations
for approval.
Transportation and Circulation
2001 General Plan Update land use dependent on many regional
circulation system improvements not yet resolved, including many
street segments and intersection deficient for LOS ‘C.’ Current
regional development pattern promotes County residential rural
and suburban sprawl without assured mitigation.
Correction of circulation deficiencies to LOS 'C' in
question with all alternative due to regional land use
pattern. Major projects with cumulative traffic impacts
include:
5) Northern SOI unless mitigation fees established &
density reduced.
7) Village Core–parking and East Branch congestion
unresolved.
8) Fredericks/ALC and Williams–Specific Plan & EIR
required.
11 & 12) East Grand Avenue and El Camino Real Mixed-
Use parking and regional congestion unresolved.
Land Use and Circulation Element. Potentially significant:
Requires Statement of
Overriding Considerations
for approval.
Item 9.a. - Page 170
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
December 2020 Page 5
Environmental Impact Topic – Area Less Than Significant
Area of Potential Significance –
Project Mitigation Measures General Plan Policy Mitigation Impact After Mitigation
Biological Resources
2001 General Plan Update (GPU) redistributes additional planned
development to least sensitive sites and maximizes mixed-use to
conserve remaining resource areas. Riparian corridor and
wetland restoration programs are weak; however, County
development in Fringe Area has a much greater impact potential
beyond City jurisdiction.
Project EIRs required for sensitive sites in city. Propose
reduction of impacts by alternatives. City should initiate
riparian corridor acquisition, wetland restoration, and
stormwater pollution prevention programs after GPU.
Open Space and Conservation
Element; Land Use Fringe Policies
of Land Use Element.
Less than significant.
Hazards
Fire safety concern in Northern SOI addressed by reduced density
and/or need for new County CDF Station.
Increased development in Mixed-Use Corridors and Village Core
may require flood, fire and project mitigations.
Density reduction essential in Land Use Study Area 5. for
Northern Sphere of Influence: Projects may still need fire
safety mitigation due to 15–minute response time. Major
mixed-use projects in Village Core may need special fire
and flood mitigation.
Safety Element. Less than significant.
Public Services
Cumulative impacts of urban population growth and additional
development may exceed current police and fire service
capabilities without assured mitigation measures. Other Planned
Developments will generally provide for project mitigation but
cumulative growth anywhere in Lucia Mar School District will
impact overcrowded schools.
Large scale projects such as Land Use Study Area 8,
Frederick/ALC and Williams require project Specific
Plans and EIRs. Other cumulative developments warrant
consideration of new impact fees, particularly in County
Fringe Area. Planned Developments will provide project
mitigation measures.
Land Use Element Park and
Recreation Element; State needs to
increase school development
priority not resolved in General Plan.
Less than significant.
Utility and Service Systems
Cumulative impacts other than Northern SOI and southeast
expansion. Land Use Study Areas 5 and 8 appear capable of
development with relatively minor mitigation measures for water,
sewer, drainage, and other utility infrastructure impacts.
Potentially significant unless Northern SOI excluded &
density reduced. Specific Plans and EIRs required for
southeastern expansion to determine mitigation
measures.
Land Use Element C/OS 6. Less than significant.
Cultural Resources
Property specific surveys needed to mitigate historical and
archeological impacts. Most significant concentration of historic
resources is in Land Use Study Area 7, Village
Core, and environs.
Village Core mixed-use projects, in particular, need to
provide site-specific resource survey and project design
proposals to mitigate loss of historic or archeological
resources.
Conservation Element and Parks
and Recreation Element.
Less than significant.
Recreation
Cumulative developments contribute to increased regional need
for park facilities and recreation programs offset in City by in-lieu
fees or dedication of added land. Need implementation programs
for recreational trails and increased regional funding
responsibility.
Potential for 20,000 City population implies need for at
least 20 acres of additional parks, local and regional
funding, and implementation programs needed to
mitigate.
Parks and Recreation Element. Less than significant.
Item 9.a. - Page 171
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
Page 6 PlaceWorks
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY
CEQA requires the City to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with change to the environment. In
this instance, most of the goals, policies, and programs from the previous Housing Element are continued
through to the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element. Table 1-2 includes the changes in programs between
the existing 2014–2019 Housing Element and the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element. Modifications to the
existing policies are identified in the text following Table 1-1.
Item 9.a. - Page 172
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
December 2020 Page 7
Table 1-2 Summary of Program Changes Between Existing Housing Element and 2020–2028 Housing Element
Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete
A. 1-1.
The City shall establish a five-year schedule of actions to implement the goals and
policies of the Housing Element.
An implementation schedule of goals and policies are outlined in the Housing Element but
many of the programs associated with these goals and policies have not yet been
implemented due to staff constraints. The City will continue to implement programs based on
the time frame under each program. This program is not needed in addition to the information
in each program.
Delete.
A. 1-2.
The City shall report annually on its progress in meeting its fair share housing
targets, and provide the collected information to the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD), development community, and non-profit housing
developers. HCD provides specific instructions and a template for the annual report.
The City reports annually on progress toward Housing Element implementation and reaching
the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) target.
Delete.
A. 1-3.
The City shall amend the Development Code to revise the requirements for the
Traffic Way Mixed Use District to remove the limitation to only live-work residential
uses. A mix of residential use types shall be allowed as allowed in all of the mixed
use zoning districts (except the Industrial Mixed Use District). The Development
Code shall also be amended to allow residential projects at densities up to 20 units
per acre in the Traffic Way Mixed Use District.
The City has not amended the Development Code regarding the limitations on uses. The
densities for the Traffic Way Mixed-Use District have also not been amended. This is due to
staff constraints. This program will be continued.
Continue as Program A.1-
2.
A. 2-1.
The City shall continue to encourage and publicize on the City’s website the
secondary dwelling program to increase public awareness.
The Development Code was updated in October 2017 regarding accessory dwelling units for
compliance with state law (Ordinance No. 688). The City has continued to monitor impacts
to accessory dwelling units from short-term rentals. Currently, the City provides information
about accessory dwelling units on the City’s website, including development standards,
procedures, and fees. This program will be continued and will include further amendments to
the ordinance to address recent updates to state law.
Amend to address updates
in state law and add
additional City efforts to
promote ADUs and
continue.
A. 3-1.
The City shall amend the Municipal Code to provide incentives for the development
of affordable housing projects, including expedited permitting, providing financial
assistance through the City’s Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund, requiring lot
consolidation, and providing greater flexibility in development standards.
The Municipal Code has not yet been amended to include these incentives for affordable
housing projects. However, impact fees have been reduced for affordable housing projects.
In addition, the City has received funding through Senate Bill 2 to revise zoning to streamline
review of affordable housing projects. This program has not successfully been implemented
due to staff constraints and will be continued.
Continue as Program A.3-
1.
A. 3-2.
The City shall amend the Development Code to include the definition of “Extremely
Low-Income” as defined by Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code.
The definition of “extremely low-income” has not yet been included in the Development Code.
Extremely low-income households earn 30 percent or less of the median household income.
The City relies on the County’s affordable housing standards, which define extremely low-
income households. This does not need inclusion in the City’s Development Code. This
program will not be continued.
Delete.
A. 3-3.
The City shall amend the Development Code to provide additional incentives
specific for extremely low-income housing projects. Incentives may include flexible
standards for on- and off-site improvements such as reduced parking requirements,
reduced curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirements; reduced or deferred water and/or
sewer connection fees; permit streamlining procedures and development review;
or financial incentives and assistance.
The City has not yet amended the Development Code regarding additional incentives for
extremely low-income housing projects. The City continues to monitor evolving state
legislation associated with housing to ensure this has not been addressed or preempted. This
program will be continued.
Continue as Program A.3-
2.
Item 9.a. - Page 173
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
Page 8 PlaceWorks
Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete
A. 10-1.
To facilitate affordable housing, the City shall comply with State Density Bonus Law.
The City shall update Development Code Chapter 16.82 to comply with AB 2280.
The City will continue to update Chapter 16.82 on an ongoing basis to comply with
any future updates to State Density Bonus law (Government Code Section 65915)
as well as evaluate proposed Development Code amendments to assess whether
they pose any constraints to developer utilization of density bonuses.
The City has not completed the Development Code amendment to comply with recent
changes to State Density Bonus Law due to staff constraints. The City continues to comply
with state law and offers density bonuses to eligible projects under state law. This program
will be continued.
Amend to reflect recent
updates to state law and
continue as Program A. 10-
1.
A. 10-2.
The City shall evaluate and amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit
procedures in the Development Code (Section 16.16.060) to provide more
predictable options for small lot infill projects in the City’s Residential land use
designations.
The Development Code has not been amended regarding the PUD permit procedures due
to staff constraints. This program will be addressed as needed through other programs and
will not be continued.
Delete.
A. 10-3.
To encourage higher densities and reduce constraints to multi-family housing
production, the City shall amend the Development Code to allow densities up to 20
du/ac in the Office Mixed Use (OMU) District for 100% multi-family housing projects
with a Minor Use Permit (MUP) subject to design review through the Architectural
Review Committee. Mixed-use projects will continue to have a maximum allowed
density of 20 du/ac.
The City has not completed the Development Code amendment to allow for increased density
in the OMU District due to staff constraints. This program will be continued.
Amend and continue as
Program A.10-2.
A. 12-1.
The City shall continue to maintain its Geographical Information System (GIS)
mapping and planning database inventory of vacant and underutilized “opportunity
sites.”
The City maintains a geographic information system (GIS) database inventory of vacant and
underutilized “opportunity sites.” This program has been successfully implemented and will
be continued.
Continue as Program A.12-
1.
A. 14-1.
The City shall amend the Development Code to include a definition of the term
“Attainable housing.”
The Development Code has not yet been amended to include the definition of “Attainable
Housing.” This effort will be achieved through an “Affordable Housing” program. The City
envisions assessing whether proposed projects include “Attainable Housing” as applications
are submitted. This amendment to the Development Code is not needed to further affordable
housing objectives. This program will not be continued.
Delete.
A. 15-1.
The City shall establish a program to provide assistance to first-time home buyers.
In the years following the 2008 recession, a number of the units originally restricted to families
earning a moderate income were sold at market rate because the formula used to determine
sales price was such that market rate prices were lower than income-restricted prices. By
default, the program acted like a first-time home buyer’s program. However, a formal first-
time home buyer program has not been established. This program will be continued.
Continue as Program A.14-
1.
B. 1-1.
The City shall continue tracking all residential projects that include affordable
housing to ensure that the affordability is maintained for at least 45 years for owner-
occupied units and 55 years for rental units, and that any sale or change of
ownership of these affordable units prior to satisfying the 45 or 55-year restriction
shall be “rolled over” for another 45 or 55 years to protect “at-risk” units.
The City tracks all affordable projects through a database, inputting any updates regarding
ownership or affordability when they occur. This program will be continued.
Combine with Programs
E.4-1, I.1-1, and I-2.1;
update for consistency with
state law; and continue as
Program H.1-1.
Item 9.a. - Page 174
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
December 2020 Page 9
Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete
B. 2-1.
The City may contract with the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO),
local non-profit organizations, or a regional monitoring agency for the monitoring of
affordable units to ensure compliance with terms of the development agreement.
The City has an agreement with the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) for
affordable housing eligibility verification and compliance. The City is also a member of the
San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund (SLOCHTF), which provides ongoing technical
assistance. This program will be continued.
Continue as Program B.2-
1.
B. 6-1.
The City shall monitor the loss of permanent workforce housing from vacation
rentals and consider modifying the Development Code to adjust for this loss.
The Development Code prohibits homestays and vacation rentals from being located within
300 feet of an existing homestay or vacation rental on the same street. To date, the City has
approved 33 homestays and 47 vacation rental applications. The City has an increased
interest in monitoring rental loss due to state housing legislation. The City will continue to
monitor the number of permits issued for homestays and vacation rentals to determine
impacts to housing.
Amend to remove term
workforce and continue as
Program B.5-1.
C. 1-1.
The City shall continue to allocate financial resources to augment extremely low,
very low, and low-income housing development based on the financial projection
of the In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fund.
The Inclusionary Affordable Housing Trust Fund will continue to devote funds to affordable
housing projects for people of extremely low, very low, and low income. For instance, the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund was used to offset impact fees for a Habitat for Humanity
project approved in 2018. That project will construct eight single-family residences that will
be deed restricted for very-low-income households and is expected to begin construction in
2020. This program will be continued.
Continue as Program C.1-
1.
C. 4-1.
The City shall continue to meet with local non-profit and private developers semi-
annually, or more frequently if opportunities arise, to promote the extremely low,
very low, and low-income housing programs outlined in the Housing Element. The
City shall direct private housing developers to funding sources (such as federal and
State housing grant fund programs and local housing trust funds) to promote
affordable housing as outlined in the policies of Goal C.
The City continues to promote the development of affordable housing opportunities for people
of extremely low, very low, and low income, including through its relationships with HASLO
and SLOCHTF. This program will be continued.
Amend and continue as
Program C.4-1.
C. 4-2.
The City shall continue to participate in financial incentive programs established by
the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund (SLOCHTF), such as a revolving
loan program.
The City continues to receive local housing funding through the SLOCHTF. This program will
be continued.
Continue as Program C.4-
2.
D. 1-1.
The City shall encourage specific plans for land within its Sphere of Influence that
include increased residential capacity for multiple-family development.
No specific plans with multiple-family development have been developed since adoption of
the previous housing element. Multiple-family developments will continue to be encouraged
through specific plans. This program will continue to be implemented.
Continue as Program D.1-
1.
E. 4-1.
When necessary, the City shall continue to work with property owners of deed
restricted affordable units who need to sell within 45 years of initial sale. When the
seller is unable to sell to an eligible buyer within a specified time period, equity
sharing provisions are established (as per the affordable housing agreement for the
property) whereby the difference between the affordable and market value is paid
to the City to eliminate any incentive to sell the converted unit at market rate. Funds
generated would then be used to develop additional affordable housing within the
City.
The City will continue to support the affordable housing agreement of properties, working with
property owners, as needed, who need to sell deed-restricted affordable units. This program
will be continued.
Combine with Programs
B.1-1, I.1-1, and I-2.1;
update for consistency with
state law; and continue as
Program H.1-1.
Item 9.a. - Page 175
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
Page 10 PlaceWorks
Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete
F. 1-1.
The City shall evaluate and amend the inclusionary affordable housing
requirements in the Development Code (Chapter 16.80) based on experience using
the requirements in producing affordable units.
Potential changes to the requirements include: (1) consider contracting with a
housing management organization to manage deed-restricted affordable units in
the City; (2) consider adding incentives to encourage construction of rental units;
and (3) investigate extending the income categories served by the inclusionary
requirements to extremely low income households. The City will engage the
development community during the evaluation process.
The City has not amended the Development Code regarding the inclusionary affordable
housing requirements. This program will be continued.
Combine with Program
F.1.3 and continue as
Program E.1-1.
F. 1-2.
The City shall amend the inclusionary affordable housing requirements in the
Development Code (Chapter 16.80) to eliminate inclusion of moderate-income
units in the requirements.
The City has not amended the Development Code eliminating the inclusion of moderate-
income units in the inclusionary affordable housing requirements. The City does this in
practice through the subdivision process. Fees are collected in lieu of providing deed-
restricted moderate-income units. This program is no longer needed and will not be
continued.
Delete.
F. 1-3.
The City shall amend the in-lieu fee as called for in the inclusionary affordable
housing requirements in the Development Code (Chapter 16.80).
The City has not amended the Development Code due to staff constraints but has developed
a preliminary methodology to amend this in-lieu fee. This program will be continued.
Combine with Program
F.1-1 and continue as
Program E.1-1.
G. 1-1.
The City shall work with non-profit organizations to maintain a mailing list of persons
interested in development projects containing affordable housing. Agendas for all
City meetings related to these projects shall be mailed to persons on the mailing
list. The City shall also continue to post the agendas on the City’s website.
The City publishes all meeting materials on its website and encourages everyone to sign up
for notification when new agendas are published. The City utilizes its contacts at HASLO and
SLOCHTF to help inform interested individuals. This program will be continued.
Continue as Program F.1-
1.
G. 1-2.
The City shall encourage construction and/or rehabilitation of housing units for low,
very-low, and extremely low income households by developing and implementing
incentive-based programs such as fee reductions, fee waivers, flexible
development standards, updating the City’s second unit ordinance to reduce
barriers to second units development in residential zones, and similar programs.
The City has updated its accessory dwelling unit ordinance and will adopt new amendments
consistent with changes in state law. The City has not developed incentive-based programs
due to staff constraints. This program overlaps with several other programs and is not needed
in the updated housing element. This program will not be continued.
Delete.
G. 1-3.
The City shall amend the Development Code to allow development of up to 15
multiple-family attached units in the MF and MFA zoning districts with a Minor Use
Permit (MUP) subject to design review through the Architectural Review
Committee. Development of over 15 multiple-family attached units in the MF and
MFA zoning districts shall require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
The City has not amended the Development Code. This program will be continued. Amend and continue as
Program F.1-2.
H. 1-1.
The City shall continue to coordinate with the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority
to maintain and expand Section 8 rental housing assistance to qualified
households.
The City coordinates with HASLO regarding Section 8 housing assistance when needed. This
program will continue to be implemented.
Continue as Program G.1-
1.
Item 9.a. - Page 176
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
December 2020 Page 11
Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete
H. 1-2.
The City shall develop a program to offer housing developers an alternative to meet
affordable housing requirements by contributing some “sweat equity” on projects
where existing housing units will be rehabilitated or conserved as affordable as per
the City’s Affordable Housing Program.
Opportunities are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This program will be continued. Continue as Program G.1-
2.
H. 2-1.
The City shall continue to consider abatement of unsafe or unsanitary structures,
including buildings or rooms inappropriately used for housing, contrary to adopted
health and safety codes. Where feasible, the City will encourage rehabilitation and
allow reasonable notice and time to correct deficiencies. Where necessary and
feasible, extremely low, very low and low-income residents displaced by abatement
action shall be eligible for relocation assistance, subject to Council approval.
This is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This program will be continued. Continue as Program G.2-
1.
I. 1-1.
Written notice shall be required prior to the conversion of any units for low-income
households to market rate units in any of the following circumstances:
▪ The units were constructed with the aid of government funding
▪ The units were required by an inclusionary zoning ordinance
▪ The project was granted a density bonus
▪ The project received other incentives
The property owner should work with the City and affordable housing developers,
such as HASLO, to identify qualified buyers and/or funding prior to conversion. In
cases where conversions occur, notice shall at a minimum be given to the following:
▪ The City of Arroyo Grande
▪ State Department of Housing and Community Development
▪ San Luis Obispo Housing Authority
▪ Residents of at-risk units
The City maintains a database of restricted units that is used to determine when these
situations will arise. This program will be continued.
Combine this program with
Programs B.1-1, E-4.1,
and I-2.1; amend to comply
with state law; and
continue as Program
H.1-1.
I. 2-1.
The City shall annually monitor the status of affordable housing developments. If
any property owners indicate plans to convert affordable units to market rate
pricing, or if the City identifies market conditions indicating potential for “at risk” unit
conversion, the City will contact qualified non-profit organizations or other agencies
and explore opportunities to assist and facilitate the transfer ownership of “at risk”
units.
The City monitors the development of affordable housing, classifying the development of new
units based on income brackets of very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. The City
will continue to ensure the availability of affordable housing units for people of very low and
low income. This program will be continued.
Combine this program with
Programs B.1-1, I.1-1, and
E.4-1; amend to comply
with state law; and
continue as Program H.1-
1.
J. 1-1.
The City shall continue to promote housing opportunities for seniors and other
special needs groups by identifying sites suitable for senior and transitional housing
and considering other incentives to promote senior and transitional housing. Single-
room occupancy units (SROs) shall be added to the use tables in the Development
Code allowed in all Mixed-Use zones with a conditional use permit. SROs shall be
allowed in the MFVH zone district with a minor use permit.
Within the planning period, a senior living project consisting of 69 beds was approved and
staff processed a pre-application for another senior living complex consisting of 120 beds.
Staff provided feedback on constraints of the site. No further implementation has occurred.
The program will be continued.
Continue as Program I.1-1.
Item 9.a. - Page 177
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
Page 12 PlaceWorks
Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete
J. 5-1.
To encourage farmworker housing, the City will amend the zoning ordinance to
identify farmworker housing as a residential use in the use tables. The City Zoning
Ordinance will be amended to ensure that permit processing procedures for
farmworker housing do not conflict with Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5,
which states that farmworker housing for six or fewer employees should be
“deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use designation,” and
17021.6 which states that for "employee housing consisting of no more than 36
beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family
or household...no conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning
clearance shall be required of employee housing of this employee housing that is
not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone.”
The City has not amended the Development Code due to staff constraints. This program will
be continued.
Continue as Program I.5-1.
K. 1-1.
The City shall continue to participate in the South San Luis Obispo County working
group cooperating with other cities, the county and other agencies in the
development of programs aimed at providing homeless shelters and related
services.
The City continues to work with the County and other relevant agencies in providing homeless
shelters and related services. The City provides grant funding to the 5 Cities Homeless
Coalition through its allocation of Community Development Block Grant federal funds and
through the City’s Jim Guthrie Community Service Grant Program for homeless services.
This program will be continued.
Continue as Program J.1-
1.
K. 2-1.
The City shall amend the Development Code to allow emergency shelters without
a conditional use permit or other discretionary permits in appropriate locations in
compliance with SB 2, the “Fair Share Zoning” law. The Development Code
amendment shall include a definition for “emergency shelter.” Emergency shelters
are currently not allowed in commercial mixed-use districts, and are allowed
through the Conditional Use Permit process in the Condominium/ Townhouse (MF),
Apartments (MFA) and Multifamily Very High Density (MFVH) residential districts.
The Development Code shall be updated to require administrative approval only for
emergency shelters in the Industrial Mixed-Use (IMU) and Highway Mixed-Use
(HMU) districts. These commercial districts have sufficient capacity to house
emergency shelters with approximately 18 acres of vacant or underutilized land
available. The IMU district has several large parcels totaling almost 13.5 acres with
ten (10) acres that are currently used as storage and/or construction yards with
small or no permanent structures. The HMU district has less potential, although
there are about four acres with a couple of large vacant parcels totaling 1.64 acres.
About 6.36 of the 18 acres have some type of permanent structure on the individual
parcels, but could be redeveloped to accommodate transitional housing.
Transitional and supportive housing shall be defined as residential uses subject to
the same standards that apply to other housing.
The Development Code can include locational and operational criteria for
emergency shelters such as:
▪ Proximity of public transit, supportive services, and commercial
services;
▪ Hours of operation;
Ordinance No. 677 was adopted in April 2016 to amend the Development Code regarding
Emergency Shelters and Supportive and Transitional Housing. This program has been
implemented.
Delete.
Item 9.a. - Page 178
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
December 2020 Page 13
Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete
▪ External lighting and noise;
▪ Provision of security measures for the proper operation and
management of a proposed facility;
▪ Measures to avoid queues of individuals outside proposed facility; and
▪ Compliance with county and State health and safety requirements for
food, medical, and other supportive services provided onsite.
Such criteria can act to encourage and facilitate emergency shelters and
transitional housing through clear and unambiguous guidelines for the application
review process, the basis for approval, and the terms and conditions of approval.
The City will solicit input from local service providers and the South San Luis Obispo
County working group in the preparation and adoption of the amendment to the
Development Code to ensure that development standards and permit processing
will not impede the approval
K. 2-2.
The City shall amend the Development Code to define transitional and supportive
housing as residential uses per Section 65582 of the Government Code subject to
the same standards that apply to other housing in the same zone.
Ordinance No. 677 was adopted in April 2016 to amend the Development Code regarding
Emergency Shelters and Supportive and Transitional Housing. This program has been
implemented.
Delete.
K. 2-3.
The City may consider implementing an overnight parking program, or a similar
program, for the homeless in appropriate zoning districts.
An overnight parking program has not yet been established. This program will be continued. Amend and continue as
Program J.2-1.
L. 1-1.
The City shall explore models to encourage the creation of housing for persons with
disabilities, including developmental disabilities. Such models could include
coordinating with the Tri-County Regional Center and other local agencies in
encouraging affordable housing projects to dedicate a percent of housing for
disabled individuals; assisting in housing development; providing housing services
that educate, advocate, inform, and assist people to locate and maintain housing;
and models to assist in the maintenance and repair of housing for persons with
developmental disabilities.
The City has not coordinated with the Tri-Counties Regional Center. However, the City will
continue to explore models to encourage development of housing for persons with
disabilities. This program will continue to be implemented.
Continue as Program K.1-
1.
L. 2-1.
The City shall create a policy or amend the Development Code to provide persons
with disabilities seeking equal access to housing an opportunity to request
reasonable accommodation in the application of City building and zoning laws.
The City has not amended the Development Code to provide an opportunity to request
reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities due to staff constraints. This program
will be continued.
Continue as Program K.2-
1.
L. 2-2.
The City will have brochures on universal design available at the Community
Development Department front counter. The City will also consider updating the
building code to encourage use of universal design in home design. Universal
design is based on the precept that throughout life, all people experience changes
in their abilities. The goal of universal design is to provide environments that are
usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for
The City has not yet made progress promoting the universal design concept but discusses
the topic with residential developers when the opportunity presents itself. Due to limitations
on staff resources, this program will not be continued.
Delete.
Item 9.a. - Page 179
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
Page 14 PlaceWorks
Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete
specialization in design and construction and/or facilitate change in occupancy over
time.
M. 1-1.
The City shall continue working to implement a water and electrical retrofit program
for existing housing units. A plumbing retrofit program was established in 2004, and
water conservation rebate programs were established in 2009. The City will
continue to work with PG&E and other agencies to establish an electrical retrofit
program.
The City has continued to promote Water Conservation Incentive programs, including the
Plumbing Retrofit Program, as well as rebate and education programs. The City has also
been involved in the San Luis Obispo County Energy Watch, a joint project between San Luis
Obispo County, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company.
In 2013, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan and partnered with San Luis Obispo County
jurisdictions to receive a California Strategic Growth Council grant to develop an
implementation and monitoring program. The program provides tools and best practices for
implementing all Climate Action Plan (CAP) programs, such as the energy audit and retrofit
program. This program will be updated to reflect current program information and continued.
Amend and continue as
Program L.1-1.
M. 1-2.
Consistent with Measure E-4 of the City’s Climate Action Plan, the City shall
establish a program to allow residential projects to receive minor exceptions if they
meet 25% of items on the Tier 1 list of the California Green Building Code (Title 24)
or 15% of items on the Tier 2 list of that code.
The City has yet to establish a program regarding minor exceptions for residential projects
that meet a minimum number of items from the California Green Building Code. This program
will be continued.
Continue as Program L.1-
2.
N. 1-1.
The City will continue to promote the enforcement of policies of the State Fair
Employment and Housing Commission, and shall resolve housing discrimination
complaints through assistance from HUD, and/or local, regional private fair housing
organizations. The City will prepare a brochure that promotes equal housing
opportunities and addresses discrimination. The brochure will be available at the
Community Development department and a link to download the brochure will be
placed on the City’s website. In addition the City shall disseminate information in
one or more of the following ways to ensure the public is aware of Fair Housing
Law:
▪ Distribute materials to property owners and apartment managers twice
a year.
▪ Make public service announcements through multiple media outlets
including newspaper, radio, television, and social media to run on a
regular basis.
▪ Conduct public presentations.
The City has not yet prepared a brochure to promote equal housing opportunities and address
discrimination or disseminated information about the Fair Housing Law to the public. This
program will be continued.
Continue as Program M.1-
1.
O. 1-1.
Prior to any public hearing where the City is considering amending or updating its
Housing Element or housing policies, the City will notify all local housing
organizations, as well as social service agencies, and post notices at significant
locations.
The City will continue to notify the necessary organizations, agencies, and other parties when
amending or updating the Housing Element or housing policies. This program will be
continued.
Continue as Program N.1-
1.
P. 1-1.
Following amendment of the General Plan Conservation/Open Space and Safety
Elements to comply with AB 162 related to floodplain mapping, the City will amend
the Housing Element if needed for consistency.
The City has not yet amended the General Plan Conservation and Safety Elements to comply
with Assembly Bill 162 due to staff constraints. Following any amendments, the Housing
Element will be modified, as necessary. This program will be implemented when those
elements are updated but will not be continued as a Housing Element program.
Delete.
Item 9.a. - Page 180
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
December 2020 Page 15
As shown in Table 1-2, the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element consolidates many programs from the
previous Housing Element to aid in implementation and to eliminate redundancy. The following 12 amended
programs are included in the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element (Note: the following programs are
modified using italic underline or strikeout to indicate change to the amended programs):
▪ A.2-1. The City shall continue to encourage and publicize on the City’s website the accessory secondary
dwelling program to increase public awareness., including a flowchart to aid in the application process. The City
will also amend the accessory dwelling unit regulations in the Development Code for consistency with updates to state law.
In addition, as part of the ordinance update, the City will evaluate ADU requirements related to off-street parking, lot
coverage and open space, setbacks, maximum size and height and passageways, entrances and orientation; and adjust
them as feasible to be more permissive than what is required by state law. The City will evaluate and adopt pre-approved
accessory dwelling unit plans to streamline the approval process and lower development costs for applicants. Additional
outreach regarding ADUs and the pre-approved plans will be conducted, including the steps detailed in the REAP (AB
101) grant work program. This outreach will include flyers, promotional materials and other outreach to further spread
the word about ADUs and ADU-related resources in Arroyo Grande. The City will monitor ADU permitting
throughout the planning period to track whether permits are keeping up with the ADUs anticipated in the housing
element, including affordability. The City will monitor the number and affordability of ADUs every two years and
include additional actions as appropriate including conducting additional outreach if ADU permits are not keeping up
with numbers anticipated in the housing element after 2 years and every 2 years thereafter. The outreach will include
regular announcements (at least once a month) about options to build ADUs and ADU resources at Planning
Commission and City Council meetings and prominent placement of ADU information and the process to permit them
on the City’s website. If ADUs are not occurring consistent with assumptions in the element, the City will amend and
submit the housing element to HCD to identify adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.
▪ A.10-1. To facilitate affordable housing, the City shall comply with State Density Bonus Law. The City
shall update Development Code Chapter 16.82 to comply with AB 2280 current state density bonus law.
The City will continue to update Chapter 16.82 on an ongoing basis to comply with any future updates
to State Density Bonus law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq.) as well as evaluate proposed
Development Code amendments to assess whether they pose any constraints to developer utilization
of density bonuses.
▪ A.10-3. To encourage higher densities and reduce constraints to multifamily housing production, the
City shall amend the Development Code to allow densities up to 20 du/ac in the OMU District and up
to 25 du/ac in the FOMU and GMU districts for 100% multifamily housing projects with a Minor-Use
Permit (MUP) subject to design review through the Architectural Review Committee. Mixed-use
projects will continue to have a maximum allowed density of 20 du/ac in OMU and 25 du/ac in FOMU
and GMU.
▪ B.5-1. The City shall monitor the loss of permanent workforce housing from vacation rentals and
consider modifying the Development Code to adjust for this loss.
Item 9.a. - Page 181
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
Page 16 PlaceWorks
▪ C.4-1. The City shall continue to meet with local non-profit and private developers semi-annually or
more frequently if opportunities arise, to promote the extremely low, very low, and low-income housing
programs and programs for special needs residents (including those who are homeless) outlined in the Housing
Element. The City shall direct private housing developers to funding sources (such as federal and state
housing grant fund programs and local housing trust funds) to promote affordable housing, as outlined
in the policies of Goal C.
▪ F.1-2. The City shall amend the Development Code to allow development of up to 15 multiple-family
attached units in the MF and MFA zoning districts with a Minor Use Permit (MUP) subject to design
review through the Architectural Review Committee. Development of over 15 multiple-family attached
units in the MF and MFA zoning districts shall require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The City shall
address and remove, replace or modify the use permit requirements for multifamily devel opment in multifamily zones to
promote certainty in the approval process, increase objectivity and address the CUP and MUP requirements as a
constraint. Examples of action include:
o Replace the use permit requirements with a site plan review, including appr oval guidance on development
and design standards
o Raise unit threshold allowed without an MUP or CUP to a greater threshold than currently allowed in
consultation with HCD
o Revise findings for use permits to be more objective, including limiting compatibility criteria to health and
safety issues
o Reduce the level of review for this type of project to more ministerial processes
▪ J.2-1 The City may shall consider implementing an overnight parking program, or a similar program,
for the homeless in appropriate zoning districts.
▪ L.1-1. The City shall continue working to implement a water conservation incentive programs, including the
Plumbing Retrofit Program, and energy conservation programs, such as those described by San Luis Obispo County
Energy Watch and others, as applicable. and electrical retrofit program for existing housing units. A
plumbing retrofit program was established in 2004, and water conservation rebate programs were
established in 2009. The City will continue to work with PG&E and other agencies to establish an
electrical retrofit program.
Programs B.1-1, E.4-1, I.1-1, and I.2-1 were combined and amended as one program - H.1-1:
▪ H. 1-1. The City will monitor the list of all dwellings in Arroyo Grande that are subsidized by
government funding or low-income housing developed through local regulations or incentives. The list
will include, at least, the number of units, the type of government program, and the date on which the
units are at risk to convert to market-rate dwellings. No units have been identified as at risk of
converting to market rate within 10 years of the beginning of the sixth-round Housing Element
planning period. The City will work to reduce the potential conversion of any units to market rate
through the following actions:
Item 9.a. - Page 182
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
December 2020 Pa ge 17
o Monitor the status of affordable projects, rental projects, and mobile homes in Arroyo
Grande. Should the property owners indicate the desire to convert properties, consider
providing technical and financial assistance, when possible, to ensure long-term
affordability.
o If conversion of units is likely, work with local service providers as appropriate to seek
funding to subsidize the at-risk units in a way that mirrors the HUD Housing Choice
Voucher (Section 8) program. Funding sources may include state or local funding sources.
Pursuant to state law, owners of deed-restricted affordable projects are required to provide notice of
restrictions that are expiring after January 1, 2021, to all prospective tenants, existing tenants, and the
City within three years of the scheduled expiration of rental restrictions. In addition, the City or owner
will provide notice to HUD and the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority. Owners shall also refer
tenants of at-risk units to educational resources regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures and
information regarding Section 8 rent subsidies and any other affordable housing opportunities in the
City. In addition, notice shall be required prior to conversion of any units to market rate for any
additional deed-restricted lower-income units that were constructed with the aid of government
funding, that were required by inclusionary zoning requirements, that were part of a project granted a
density bonus, or that were part of a project that received other incentives.
If a development is offered for sale, HCD must certify persons or entities that are eligible to purchase
the development and to receive notice of the pending sale. Placement on the eligibility list will be based
on experience with affordable housing.
When necessary, the City shall continue to work with property owners of deed-restricted affordable
units who need to sell within 45 years of initial sale. When the seller is unable to sell to an eligible buyer
within a specified time period, equity-sharing provisions are established (pursuant to the affordable
housing agreement for the property), whereby the difference between the affordable and market value
is paid to the City to eliminate any incentive to sell the converted unit at market rate. Funds generated
would then be used to develop additional affordable housing within the City. The City shall continue
tracking all residential projects that include affordable housing to ensure that the affordability is
maintained for at least 45 years for owner-occupied units and 55 years for rental units, and that any
sale or change of ownership of these affordable units prior to satisfying the 45- or 55-year restriction
shall be “rolled over” for another 45 or 55 years to protect “at-risk” units.
The following 12 programs are new to the City and are included in the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element:
▪ A.1-1. To comply with Assembly Bill (AB) 1397, the Development Code shall be amended to allow
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 077-011-010, 077-204-028, 077-211-022, and 077-221-031 in the
land inventory in this sixth-round Housing Element to be developed for residential use by-right, in
accordance with California Government Code Section 65583.2(c). This zoning change is necessary
because parcel 077-011-010 which is vacant was included in the City’s fourth- and fifth-round Housing
Elements and has not yet developed for housing and the other three parcels which are non-vacant were
Item 9.a. - Page 183
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
Page 18 PlaceWorks
included in the City’s fifth round Housing Element. This by-right (without discretionary review)
requirement will only apply to housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are
affordable to lower-income households. The application of the requirement should not be used to
further constrain the development of housing. As such, housing developments that do not contain the
requisite 20 percent would still be allowed to be developed according to the underlying (base) zoning.
These parcels are currently zoned Office Mixed-Use (OMU) and Fair Oaks Mixed Use (FOMU) which
require a Use Permit for multifamily housing development. The City shall modify the Development
Code to reflect the by-right provisions described in this program within three years of the beginning
of the sixth-cycle Housing Element planning period, which is December 31, 2023.
▪ A.1-3. To mitigate the loss of affordable housing units, new housing developments shall be required
to replace affordable housing units lost due to new development. In accordance with 65583.2
subdivision (g), the City also will require replacement housing units subject to the requirements of
Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (c)(3) on sites identified in the sites inventory when any
new development (residential, mixed-use or non-residential) occurs on a site that has been occupied
by or restricted for the use of lower-income households at any time during the previous five years. This
requirement applies to:
o Non-vacant sites
o Vacant sites with previous residential uses that have been vacated or demolished
▪ A.2-2. To further encourage ADU creation, the City shall establish an amnesty program in compliance
with Senate Bill 13 to facilitate the process of bringing unpermitted ADUs into compliance with local
regulations including the building code by owners of this type of unit. Senate Bill 13 requires under
certain circumstances specified by state law, that enforcement of violations related to unpermitted
ADUs be delayed for 5 years if correcting the violations are not necessary to protect health and safety.
The City program would consider reductions in fees associated with necessary upgrades to bring the
unit up to code along with providing information and staff assistance with the steps in the process to
bring the unit up to code.
▪ A.3-3. The City shall consider a program to waive, reduce or defer impact fees for ADUs and projects
with deed-restricted affordable units.
▪ D.1-2. The City shall review the parking standards for affordable and senior housing projects and
reduce them to the greatest extent possible.
▪ F.1-3. Establish a written policy or procedure and other guidance as appropriate to specify the SB 35
(2017) streamlining approval process and standards for eligible projects, as set forth under California
Government Code, Section 65913.4.
Item 9.a. - Page 184
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
December 2020 Pa ge 19
▪ F.1-4. Conduct a comprehensive review of the Development Code and the General Plan and replace
any subjective standards that may apply to housing projects with objective design standards in
compliance with applicable State law. This will include revising the findings for design review to be
objective.
▪ F.1-5. The City will establish a written process to comply with Senate Bill 1087 and identify ways to
move forward with improvements to water and wastewater infrastructure as needed in order to
maintain sufficient infrastructure and capacity to serve the City’s housing need. This will include
working on planning, funding and construction of infrastructure.
▪ I.5-2. Revise the definition of family in the Development Code to comply with state law.
▪ J.2-2. Per AB 2162, the City will review its Development Code to ensure compliance with AB 2162
related to allowing supportive housing. The Development Code will be reviewed to assess whether
supportive housing is allowed without discretionary review in all zoning districts that allow multifamily
housing or mixed-use development, including nonresidential zoning districts, as applicable. If it is
determined that the allowed uses in the Development Code are not in compliance with AB 2162, the
City will revise the allowed uses along with corresponding development standards, as detailed in AB
2162.
▪ J.2-3. As set forth in AB 101 (2019), the City will review its Development Code and make revisions, if
necessary, to allow low-barrier navigation centers for the homeless pursuant to Government Code
Sections 65660–65668.
▪ M.1-2. Arroyo Grande will develop a plan to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). The AFFH
Plan shall take actions to address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity
for all persons, regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial
status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act (Part 2.8, commencing with Section 12900, of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other
state and federal fair housing and planning law. Specific actions will include the following:
o Facilitate public education and outreach by creating informational flyers on fair housing that
will be made available at public counters, libraries, and on the City’s website. City Council
meetings will include a fair housing presentation at least once per year.
o Actively recruit residents from neighborhoods of concentrated poverty (if applicable) to
serve or participate on boards, committees, and other local government bodies.
o Ensure environmental hazards are not disproportionately concentrated in low-income
communities and low-income communities of color.
o Develop a proactive code enforcement program that holds property owners accountable
and proactively plans for resident relocation, when necessary.
Item 9.a. - Page 185
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
Page 20 PlaceWorks
1.4 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an addendum shall be prepared if some changes or additions
to a previously adopted EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions enumerated in CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15162(a)(1)–(3) calling for the preparation of subsequent EIR have occurred. As stated in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations):
When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be
prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light
of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
The proposed project would fulfill none of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1)
to (3) as these changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major revisions to the 2001 General Plan EIR.
Accordingly, this checklist provides the substantial evidence required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to
support the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required and an addendum to the General Plan EIR is the
appropriate environmental document to address changes to the project.
Item 9.a. - Page 186
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
December 2020 Pa ge 21
As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR):
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified
EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in
Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached
to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted
negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section
15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the
project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial
evidence.
A copy of this addendum and all supporting documentation may be reviewed or obtained at the City of Arroyo
Grande Community Development Department, 300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California 93420.
Additionally, a copy of this addendum is available on the City website:
https://www.arroyogrande.org/142/Planning-Division
Item 9.a. - Page 187
December 2020 Page 22
2. CEQA Analysis
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The General Plan EIR acknowledges that new development permitted and regulated by the General Plan will
have some significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. These significant and unavoidable impacts
include impacts to Water Resources, Air Quality, and Transportation and Circulation. The General Plan Update
proposes population growth and development that will approach or exceed current water resources, air quality
standards, circulation system capacities, and public service and facility capabilities. The General Plan EIR
evaluates the proposed revisions to the goals, policies, and programs of the City of Arroyo Grande General
Plan, which was adopted in 2001. The General Plan consists of policies concerning land use, circulation,
housing, conservation, open space, noise, safety, agriculture, economic development, and parks and recreation.
General Plan revisions have very few, if any, specific environmental impacts. The General Plan is largely
designed to be self-mitigating by incorporating policies and implementation measures that address and mitigate
related environmental impacts, such as zoning codes and design standards.
As identified in Table 1-1, mitigation is proposed for the following environmental impact topics: Land Use and
Planning, Population and Housing, Geophysical, Water, Biological Resources, Hazards, Public Services, Utility
and Service Systems, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, and Recreation. Proposed mitigation for each
environmental impact topic reduces the areas of potential significance to less than significant. Table 1-2 shows
that most of the existing Housing Element programs will remain unchanged with the proposed project. The
12 new programs are either informative, resulting in no physical change to the environment, or reflect state
mandates. The proposed Housing Element does not amend the development pattern for the City, as shown in
the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the zoning map for the City. Physical change to the environment
would occur from implementation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, not the proposed Housing
Element. As the proposed Housing Element does not affect the land use pattern of the city, or result in any
physical change to the environment, there are no new environmental impacts, or an increase in the severity of
any previously evaluated environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR.
The proposed Housing Element establishes targets for the income accessibility of future housing, however the
ability to construct the housing is based on the Land Use Element. As the City is able to meet its RHNA
without changing any land use designation, the Land Use Element remains unchanged from the document
evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR relied on policies from various elements of the
General Plan to address future development. The proposed project does not change these policies. Thus, the
finding of the General Plan EIR is that there are no impacts that will, as a result of adopting the General Plan
revisions, require impact-specific mitigation measures. Further, based on review of the General Plan EIR, and
consideration that the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element does not add new programs that would affect
development in the city, the project would result in less than significant impacts.
Item 9.a. - Page 188
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
2. CEQA Analysis
December 2020 Page 23
New program A.1-1 would allow four parcels in this sixth-round Housing Element to be developed for
residential use by-right when a project with at least 20 percent affordable housing units is proposed. All future
development in the city would be required to comply with local regulations, including the General Plan and
Development Code. All projects would be subject to development procedures of the City, such as the Municipal
Code, Zoning Code, and subdivision standards. These local regulations guide future development and would
address any physical impact resulting from development. Moreover, the City’s Development Code contains a
list of permitted uses for each respective zoning district. The permitted uses anticipate physical impacts
associated with development and would therefore result in no new impact as part of development. These
regulations are applied as part of the building permit process and are independent of CEQA. Therefore, this
process would be unaffected by the change to by-right zoning. Furthermore, significant impacts identified in
the General Plan EIR are mitigated through the incorporation of policies and implementation measures, such
as zoning codes and design standards. Future by-right development would still be subject to federal, state, and
local policies regarding land use, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, wetland conservation, and construction
air quality permitting. These policies apply to all projects, regardless of whether a project is a discretionary
action.
As the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element does not change any land use designation or zone district, the
impacts of the proposed project will be no more substantial than analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No new
mitigation measures are necessary.
1.6 FINDING
The discussion in this addendum confirms that the proposed project has been evaluated for significant impacts
pursuant to CEQA. The discussion is meaningfully different than a determination that a project is “exempt”
from CEQA review, as the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element update is not exempt. Rather, the
determination here is that the 2001 General Plan EIR evaluated all the physical impacts likely to result from
future development. As the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element does not change any land use designation
or approve any development, the General Plan EIR provides a sufficient and adequate analysis of the
environmental impacts of the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element.
There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not
have been known at the time of the adoption of the General Plan EIR. The proposed project consists entirely
of land uses permitted by project sites’ existing General Plan land use designation and zoning and represents
no change from the impacts that were assumed and analyzed by the General Plan EIR.
As a result, and for the reasons explained in this addendum, the project would not cause any new significant
environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in
the General Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 allowing the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document as
authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum. Accordingly, this EIR addendum has been
prepared. The addendum demonstrates that the project will not create any new significant environmental
impacts or substantially increase the severity of those significant environmental impacts disclosed in the
General Plan EIR.
Item 9.a. - Page 189
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
2. CEQA Analysis
Page 24 PlaceWorks
The following identifies the standards set forth in Section 15162 as they relate to the project. The text that
follows the provisions of the law relates to the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element.
1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major
revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
As shown in Table 1-2, the program changes included in the proposed Housing Element are
limited to complying with state law, combining programs with similar intent to aid in
implementation, or elimination of programs where the City has already completed the
identified task. The proposed project does not result in the rezoning of land or approval of
any development project. All development in the city must be consistent with the General
Plan, and if a discretionary action, must complete a project-specific CEQA analysis.
The programs identified in Table 1-2 that propose changes to the Development Code
represent modification of existing policy to either streamline development, make the code
consistent with state law, or implement new programs. As all of the sites that these modified
programs would affect are currently designated for development in the General Plan, there
would be no change in the physical impact associated with future development. Furthermore,
mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR would apply to future development
and reduce impacts to less than significant.
Program F.1-2. involves additional updates to allow 20 multiple-family attached units in the
MFA zoning district. Projects proposing 15 dwelling units per acre or less will require a minor
use permit, and projects proposing more than 15 dwelling units per acre and up to 20 dwelling
units per acre will require a conditional use permit. Projects of any density would be subject
to design review. Program A.2-1 involves informational changes that address updates in state
law and adds additional City efforts to promote ADUs consistent with state requirements and
existing zoning designations. Program A.10-1 involves informational changes that address
compliance with the current state density law. Program A.10-3 involves information changes
that specify allowed densities of 25 dwelling units per acre in the FOMU and GMU districts
for 100 percent multifamily housing projects as well as 25 dwelling units per acre in the FOMU
and GMU districts for mixed-use projects. Program B. 5-1 involves a modification that
removes the term workforce.
Program C. 4-1 involves informational changes that includes a reference to promote programs
for special needs residents. Program J.2-1 involves informational changes that update language
to be legally-binding in order to establish an overnight parking program. Program L. 1-1
involves informational changes and identifies new water conservation incentives, energy, and
retrofit programs for the City to implement. Programs B. 1-1, E. 4-1, I. 1-1, and I. 2-1 were
combined and amended as one program to comply with state law and aid in their
implementation as they were similar in intent. As such, these modifications to the existing
programs would not result in any physical impacts on the environment. The proposed
Item 9.a. - Page 190
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
2. CEQA Analysis
December 2020 Page 25
Housing Element consolidates many programs from the existing Housing Element to aid in
implementation and to eliminate redundancy.
The 12 new programs represent changes that allow the City to amend the Development Code
to allow four parcels in this sixth-round Housing Element to be developed for residential use
by-right when a project with at least 20 percent affordable housing units is proposed;
encourage the legalization of ADUs by establishing an amnesty program; aim to waive, reduce,
or defer impact fees for ADUs and projects with deed-restricted affordable units and reduce
parking standards for affordable and senior housing projects; establish written policies or
procedures that specify the streamlining approval process and standards for eligible projects
in Government Code Section 65913.4 (SB 35); revise the Development Code to change
subjective standards that apply to housing projects to objective standards; establish a written
process to comply with Government Code Section 65589.7 (SB 1087) and identify ways to
move forward with improvements to water and wastewater infrastructure; revise the definition
of family in the Development Code to comply with state law; ensure compliance with
Government Code Section 65583 (AB 2162) related to allowing supportive housing; ensure
compliance with multiple state laws regarding replacing affordable housing units when
redevelopment occurs on their parcel; allow for low-barrier navigation centers for the
homeless; and enable the City to develop a fair housing plan that takes actions to address
significant disparities in housing needs and in access to housing opportunities.
New development resulting from these programs would occur on land designated for housing
under the current General Plan. Furthermore, all future development in the city would be
required to comply with local regulations, including the General Plan and Development Code.
Consequently, all projects would be subject to development procedures of the City, such as
the Municipal Code, Zoning Code, and subdivision standards. These local regulations guide
future development and would address any physical impact resulting from development.
Moreover, the City’s Development Code contains a list of permitted uses for each respective
zoning district. The permitted uses anticipate physical impacts associated with development
and would therefore result in no new impact as part of development. As shown in Table 1-
1,the mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR would continue to apply to all development.
All future residential development on the four parcels identified for residential use by right as
described above would be required to be evaluated in accordance with the development code,
as outlined in Chapter 16 of the City’s municipal code. Future by-right development would
still be subject to federal, state, and local policies regarding land use, such as the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, wetland conservation, and construction air quality permitting. Moreover, the
City maintains a thorough building permit review process prior to the issuance of any building
permit. The building permit review process is independent of the CEQA process and would
be unaffected by the change to by-right zoning. Additionally, prior to issuance of any building
permit, a project applicant is required to pay development impact fees (Chapter 3.36 of the
municipal code), which would address potential impacts to public services.
Item 9.a. - Page 191
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
2. CEQA Analysis
Page 26 PlaceWorks
The modifications to housing policies do not amend the adopted development pattern for the
City, as shown in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Because the changes to the
Housing Element would not affect the land use pattern of the city or result in any physical
changes to the environment, there are no new environmental impacts or increases in the
severity of any previously identified environmental impacts.
2. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.
As shown in Table 1-2, the proposed Housing Element programs are similar to the existing
policies of the General Plan. The proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element includes 12
amended programs and 12 new programs. As stated above, these amended and new programs
would not result in new significant environmental impacts. These programs are either
informative, resulting in no physical change to the environment, or reflect state mandates.
Physical change to the environment would occur from implementation of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan, not the proposed Housing Element. As the City is able to meet
its RHNA without changing any land use designation, the Land Use Element remains
unchanged from the document evaluated in the General Plan EIR. All future development
would be subject to project-specific CEQA analysis as well as the policies and programs of
the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element. Moreover, the physical impacts have either already
occurred, would be exempt from CEQA (under Section 15303), or would be subject to project-
specific CEQA analysis, as well as the policies from the General Plan.
All future development would be subject to project-specific CEQA analysis as well as the
policies and programs of the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element. As discussed above, all
future residential development on the four parcels identified for residential use by right would
be required to be evaluated in accordance with the development code. Future by-right
development would still be subject to federal, state, and local policies regarding land use. Prior
to the issuance of any building permit, a project applicant would address potential impacts to
public services by paying the required development impact fees. The City’s Development Code
contains a list of permitted uses for each respective zoning district, which anticipate physical
impacts associated with development. Therefore, no new impacts would occur as a result of
future development. Because a development project must be consistent with the General Plan,
zoning, and development standards of the City, and the proposed Housing Element would
not affect land use patterns in the city or result in any physical changes to the environment,
the resulting impacts would be identical to the previously certified General Plan EIR.
3. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown
in the previous EIR.
The proposed project would have the same significant impacts as the previously certified
General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR identified significant impacts for land use and
planning, population and housing, geophysical, biological resources, hazards, public services,
utility and service systems, aesthetics, recreation, water resources, air quality, and
Item 9.a. - Page 192
A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E
C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E
2. CEQA Analysis
December 2020 Page 27
transportation and circulation. As shown in Table 1-1, mitigation measures for the General
Plan EIR would also apply to the proposed project. Because the proposed project does not
include land use changes and the new and amended programs identified in Table 1-2 do not
affect land use patterns in the city or result in physical changes to the environment, there are
no new or more severe significant impacts associated with the proposed 2020–2028 Housing
Element.
4. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact
be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
The proposed project includes policy-level changes that are limited to complying with state
law and does not result in physical changes to the environment. Moreover, the proposed
project does not create new impacts or the need for additional mitigation measures. The
mitigation measures for the General Plan EIR address significant impacts for land use and
planning, population and housing, geophysical, biological resources, hazards, public services,
utility and service systems, aesthetics, recreation, water resources, air quality, and
transportation and circulation. As shown in Table 1-1, mitigation measures for the General
Plan EIR would also apply to the 2020–2028 Housing Element. The City is required to adopt
a Housing Element, and the element must be reviewed and certified by the Housing and
Community Development Department. There is no feasible alternative to adopting a Housing
Element. As with the existing Housing Element evaluated in the General Plan EIR, the
proposed Housing Element does not result in significant environmental impacts; therefore,
there is no need for new mitigation measures.
5. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
The proposed project would have the same significant impacts as the previously certified
General Plan EIR, and all associated mitigation measures would continue to apply. As stated
in the response to Standard 4, there are no new significant impacts resulting from adoption of
the 2020–2028 Housing Element; therefore, there are no new mitigation measures or
alternatives to the proposed project.
Item 9.a. - Page 193
ACTION MINUTES
MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020
ARROYO GRANDE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Martin called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Planning Commission: Commissioners Jamie Maraviglia, Andrea Montes, Ken Sage, Vice
Chair Frank Schiro and Chair Glenn Martin were present.
Staff Present: City Manager / Acting Community Development Director Whitney
McDonald, Associate Planner Andrew Perez and Assistant Planner
Patrick Holub were present.
3.FLAG SALUTE
Chair Martin led the flag salute.
4.AGENDA REVIEW
None.
5. COMMUNITY OMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
The Commission received two supplemental memorandums regarding item 9.a.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.a. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the July 21, 2020 Regular Planning Commission
meeting.
7.b. CONSIDERATION OF TIME EXTENSION 20-002 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18-003
AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 18-001 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP
ACT AND ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE; LOCATION – 184 BRISCO ROAD;
APPLICANT – HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY; REPRESENTATIVE
–WILL RUOFF, TEN OVER STUDIO
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution
approving Time Extension 20-002 for Tentative Tract Map 18-003 and Planned Unit Development
18-001.
7.c. CONSIDERATION OF TIME EXTENSION 20-003 FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
13-002 AND PL ANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 13-002 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE; LOCATION – CORBETT
CANYON ROAD (TRACT 2985); APPLICANT – SCOTT PACE; REPRESENTATIVE –TONY
COSCIA
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution
approving Time Extension 20-003 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13-002 and Planned Unit
Development 13-002.
Item 7.a - Page 1
ATTACHMENT 4
Item 9.a. - Page 194
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2
MINUTES
OCTOBER 6, 2020
Action: Commissioner Maraviglia moved and Vice Chair Schiro seconded the motion to approve the
Consent Agenda.
The motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Maraviglia, Schiro, Montes, Sage and Martin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
9. NON-PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.a STUDY SESSION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND RECEIVE
COMMENT AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE; GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take public comment,
provide direction to staff, and direct staff to submit the HEU to the State for review and conditional
certification.
Associate Planner Perez presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner questions
regarding attainable housing, manufactured homes and mixed use zoning regulations.
Amy Sinsheimer, consultant, responded to Commissioner questions regarding goals, attainable
housing and updates from the previous Housing Element.
Chair Martin opened the public comment period.
Kris Roudebush, First 5 San Luis Obispo County, commented that the Housing Element should
further address child care and intergenerational housing.
Ben Oakley
Kevin Buchannon commented that the Housing Element does not adequately addressing the problem
of the “missing middle.”
City Manager / Acting Community Development Director McDonald summarized the Commissioner’s
comments.
10. ADM INISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
Case No. Applicant Address Description Action Appeal
Deadline
TUP20-024 Pastor Greg
Wallace, St.
John’s
Lutheran
Church
959 Valley
Road
Establishment of a Safe
Parking Program
A 10/07/2020
VSR20-002 Aaron Ganage 241
Stagecoach
Road
52 square-foot second
story bathroom addition
A 10/07/2020
Item 7.a - Page 2Item 9.a. - Page 195
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3
MINUTES
OCTOBER 6, 2020
11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Vice Chair Schiro expressed appreciation for City staff and members of the public for supporting local
businesses.
12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager / Acting Community Development Director McDonald mentioned:
1. The City is conducting a recruitment for a replacement Director and hopes to have a
candidate some time in December; and
2. Two development projects have applied for pre-applications to be reviewed by the City
Council including a project by the Housing Authority for San Luis Obispo County and a hotel
developer at the Faeh avenue site.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m.
ATTEST:
PATRICK HOLUB GLENN MARTIN, CHAIR
ASSISTANT PLANNER
(Approved at PC Meeting ______________)
Item 7.a - Page 3Item 9.a. - Page 196
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue , Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
December 10, 2020
Whitney McDonald, City Manager
City Manager’s Office
City of Arroyo Grande
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Dear Whitney McDonald:
RE: Review of Arroyo Grande’s 6th Cycle (2020-2028) Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Arroyo Grande’s (City) draft housing element received
for review on October 12, 2020, along with revisions received on December 2 and 8, 2020.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review.
The draft element, incorporating the revisions submitted, meets the statutory requirements
of State Housing Element Law. The housing element will comply with State Housing
Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code) when it is adopted, submitted to, and
approved by HCD, in accordance with Government Code section 65585, subdivision (g).
To remain on an eight-year planning cycle, the City must adopt its housing element within
120 calendar days from the statutory due date of December 31, 2020 for San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments localities. If adopted after this date, Government Code section
65588, subdivision (e)(4), requires the housing element be revised every four years until
adopting at least two consecutive revisions by the statutory deadline. For more information
on housing element adoption requirements, please visit our website at:
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-
memos/docs/sb375_final100413.pdf.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing
element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element
process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that
represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly
available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element
compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill
(SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable
ATTACHMENT 5
Item 9.a. - Page 197
Whitney McDonald, City Manager
Page 2
Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing
Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements
pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City
will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
HCD appreciates the hard work and dedication the City’s housing element team provided
and looks forward to receiving the adopted housing element. If you have any questions or
need additional technical assistance, please contact DC Navarrette, of our staff, at
David.Navarrette@hcd.ca.gov
Sincerely,
Shannan West
Land Use & Planning Unit Chief
Item 9.a. - Page 198
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
2
1.2 Relationship to City General Plan
Housing elements are one of eight elements of the General Plan that every California city and
county is required by state law to prepare. Under state law, a General Plan must function as an
integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of values. The housing, land use, and
circulation elements form the heart of a community strategy to promote orderly growth and
provide housing for all economic segments.
State law is very specific about the content of housing elements. The housing element is also the
only part of the general plan that is subject to mandatory deadlines for periodic updates that
include a review and “certification” by HCD.
General Plan Consistency
The City’s Land Use Element of the 2001 General Plan designates the sites noted in this Housing
Element for residential purposes at densities consistent with the goals of providing housing
affordable to a wide range of incomes. The Housing Element has been reviewed for consistency
with the City’s General Plan and is consistent with the policy direction in the plan. No
disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist in Arroyo Grande’s sphere of influence, so no
updates to the General Plan are needed to comply with Senate Bill (SB) 244. As portions of the
General Plan are amended in the future, the Housing Element will be reviewed to ensure internal
consistency.
1.3 Organization of Housing Element
As noted previously, the intent of this Housing Element update is to meet the statutory requirements
of state housing law. Chapter 1 provides a brief overview of the laws and its relationship to the
General Plan. Chapter 2 is the heart of the document, setting forth all the goals, policies, programs,
and objectives for housing in Arroyo Grande. Chapter 3 describes relevant demographics
concerning housing needs and issues in the City, while Chapter 4 discusses regional housing needs
and provides an overview of the City’s land availability and public services. Chapter 5 analyzes
the constraints to housing development and Chapter 6 sets forth a set of regional goals and
policies developed in coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo, the San Luis Obispo Council
of Governments, and all seven incorporated cities in the County. Chapter 7 reviews the past
housing efforts as proposed in the 2014–2019 Housing Element.
1.4 Public Participation
The California Government Code states that “the local government shall make a diligent effort to
achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of
the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.” While opportunities to connect
with the community are more limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City has participated
in the Regional Housing Action Team and the Regional Housing Summit, conducted a study
session with the Planning Commission and made the draft housing element available for public
review on the City’s website. The City also notified 10 Native American tribes about the initiation
of the Housing Element Update in Spring 2020 and invited them to comment on the process and
document. The Regional Housing Action Team and Regional Compact efforts are described in
Chapter 6.
ATTACHMENT 6
Item 9.a. - Page 199
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
3
City staff presented along with the other jurisdictions in the county at the annual Housing Summit
held online on September 10, 2020. The summit was organized by the San Luis Obispo Chamber
of Commerce. This year’s online event was split into multiple days. The September 10th event was
dedicated to the regional housing planning efforts underway by the Regional Housing Action
Team including the regional portion of each jurisdiction’s housing element. Each city and the
county presented about their housing element and housing planning efforts and responded to
questions from the moderator and participants.
Public Draft Housing Element
The Draft Housing Element was published on the City of Arroyo Grande website and made
available for public comment on September 21, 2020. The City notified key stakeholders via email,
as listed in Appendix A. The City also notified these stakeholders about the October 6th study
session to give them the opportunity to participate.
Study Session
The City held a virtual public study session with the Planning Commission to solicit input on October
6, 2020. The format for this meeting was a presentation with an overview of the 6th-round Housing
Element update process and solicited input from the members of the Commission and meeting
attendees on the public review draft. Five Planning Commissioners, one City Councilmember, and
at least three members of the public attended the meeting. City staff and the City’s consultant
gave an introductory presentation and then a discussion was held with those at the session. There
were no requests for translation services at the meeting.
The following is a summary of the comments and questions received at the study session:
• The draft housing element is detailed but exceeds the City’s ability to complete all
identified tasks due to staff workload limits. Consider looking into other resources that could
be helpful to City staff.
• Are the goals in the goals, policies, and programs section in order of importance or priority
for implementation?
• Are Policy A.1 and the programs that go with it the only zoning changes identified in the
housing element?
• Are there certain areas in the City’s sphere of influence where Program D.1-1 would aim
to conduct specific plans?
• Does the state enforce the building of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and
if so, what they do to enforce?
• A commenter asked about a program that was removed from the existing housing
element regarding attainable housing and whether that type of housing is different from
affordable housing?
• The high density, low-income housing sites proposed across the city in the sites inventory
should be more well-distributed and spread across the city.
• There was a question about Policy A.2 regarding manufactured homes and whether
allowing manufactured homes in the way the policy calls for would be required?
• The City appears to promote rather than just allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the
draft housing element.
Item 9.a. - Page 200
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
16
ordinance update, the City will evaluate ADU requirements related to off-street parking,
lot coverage and open space, setbacks, maximum size and height and passageways,
entrances and orientation; and adjust them as feasible to be more permissive than what
is required by state law. The City will evaluate and adopt pre-approved accessory dwelling
unit plans to streamline the approval process and lower development costs for applicants.
Additional outreach regarding ADUs and the pre-approved plans will be conducted,
including the steps detailed in the REAP (AB 101) grant work program. This outreach will
include flyers, promotional materials and other outreach to further spread the word about
ADUs and ADU-related resources in Arroyo Grande. The City will monitor ADU permitting
throughout the planning period to track whether permits are keeping up with the ADUs
anticipated in the housing element, including affordability. The City will monitor the
number and affordability of ADUs every two years and include additional actions as
appropriate including conducting additional outreach if ADU permits are not keeping up
with numbers anticipated in the housing element after 2 years and every 2 years
thereafter. The outreach will include regular announcements (at least once a month)
about options to build ADUs and ADU resources at Planning Commission and City Council
meetings and prominent placement of ADU information and the process to permit them
on the City’s website. If ADUs are not occurring consistent with assumptions in the element,
the City will amend and submit the housing element to HCD to identify adequate sites to
accommodate the RHNA.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Amend Development Code by May 31, 2021 and if needed later in the
planning period to address any new updates to state law, and enforce state law until the
zoning is updated. Assess ADU approval progress by the end of 2022 and every two years
thereafter, and conduct additional outreach and amend the housing element after that
if ADU numbers are not tracking with projections in Chapter 4 of the Housing Element.
Funding: General Fund, SB 2 funds, and AB 101 funds
Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is continued consistent production of accessory
dwelling units as an affordable housing alternative.
Quantified Objective: 15 low income and 14-15 moderate income units/year during the
planning period. Total of 120 low-income and 116 moderate income units for the
planning period.
A.2-2. To further encourage ADU creation, the City shall establish an amnesty program in
compliance with Senate Bill 13 to facilitate the process of bringing unpermitted ADUs into
compliance with local regulations including the building code by owners of this type of
unit. Senate Bill 13 requires under certain circumstances specified by state law, that
enforcement of violations related to unpermitted ADUs be delayed for 5 years if correcting
the violations are not necessary to protect health and safety. The City program would
consider reductions in fees associated with necessary upgrades to bring the unit up to
code along with providing information and staff assistance with the steps in the process to
bring the unit up to code.
Responsible agency/department: Community Development
Timeframe: Develop and put amnesty program into place by May 31, 2022.
Funding: General Fund
Item 9.a. - Page 201
City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element
33
2.2 Summary of Quantified Objectives
Quantified objectives estimate the number of units that are planned to be constructed,
rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period. This information is presented in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 Quantified Objectives by Income Group
Housing Program
Quantified Objectives by Income Group
Total Extremely
Low-
Income
Very Low-
Income
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
New Housing Production
Program A.1-1. 8 27 63 0 0 98
Program A.1-2. 0 0 0 10 10 20
Program A.2-1. 0 0 120 116 0 236
Program A.3-1. 0 5 5 0 0 10
Program A.3-2. 2 0 0 0 0 2
Program A.10-1. 10 10 0 0 0 20
Program A.12-1. 85 85 107 124 291 692
Program C.1-1. 3 3 20 0 0 26
Program C.4-2. 0 5 0 0 0 5
Program E.1-1. 2 5 10 15 0 32
Program F.1-2. 2 5 8 0 0 15
Program I.1-1. 5 10 0 0 0 15
Program I.5-1. 0 5 0 0 0 5
Program K.1-1. 0 5 0 0 0 5
Subtotals 117 165 333 265 301 1,181
Preservation
Program H.1-1 0 10 20 0 0 30
Subtotals 0 10 20 0 0 30
Rehabilitation
Program G.1-2 0 0 5 0 0 5
Subtotals 0 0 5 0 0 5
Totals 117 175 358 225 301 1,216
Source: City of Arroyo Grande and California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC), 2020.
Item 9.a. - Page 202
ACTION MINUTES
MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2021
ARROYO GRANDE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Martin called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Planning Commission: Commissioners Jamie Maraviglia, Ken Sage, Vice Chair Frank Schiro
and Chair Glenn Martin were present. Commissioner Andrea Montes
was absent.
Staff Present: City Manager / Acting Community Development Director Whitney
McDonald, Associate Planner Andrew Perez and Assistant Planner
Patrick Holub were present.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Chair Martin led the flag salute.
4.AGENDA REVIEW
None.
5. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
The Commission received two supplemental memorandums regarding item 9.a.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.a. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the November 17, 2020 Regular Planning
Commission meeting.
8.PUBLIC HEARINGS
CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002; HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION
–CITYWIDE (Perez)
Associate Planner Perez presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner questions
regarding the General Plan.
City Manager / Acting Community Development Director McDonald responded to Commissioner
questions regarding Housing and Community Development’s conditional approval of the updated
Housing Element.
Amy Sinsheimer, Placeworks, responded to Commissioner questions regarding non-vacant sites
evaluated and SLOCOG comments.
Chair Martin opened the Public Comment period.
ATTACHMENT 7
Item 9.a. - Page 203
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2
MINUTES
JANUARY 5, 2021
Kevin Buchanan spoke regarding the letter he submitted and mentioned that there have been no
significant changes made to the draft document.
Seeing no further public comment, Chair Martin closed the Public Comment period.
Action: Chair Martin moved and Vice Chair Schiro seconded the motion to adopt a Resolution
recommending the City Council adopt the 2020 Housing Element Update and rely upon an addendum
to the General Plan EIR in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Martin, Schiro, Maraviglia and Sage
NOES: None
ABSENT: Montes
9. NON-PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
10. ADM INISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE DECEMBER 15, 2020
11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None.
12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager / Acting Community Development Director McDonald announced that a new
Community Development Director should be announced at the first meeting in February.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
PATRICK HOLUB GLENN MARTIN, CHAIR
ASSISTANT PLANNER
(Approved at PC Meeting ______________)
Case No. Applicant Address Description Action Appeal
Deadline
PPR 20-027 Kevin and
Jeanne
Phillips
118 Allen
Street
Establishment of a
Vacation Rental
A 1/6/2021
Item 9.a. - Page 204
INTEGRBTED PROGMM EIR
(seH 3tf. 2sooisao27
Public Review and Comment DraR, May 21,2001
ATTACHMENT 8
Item 9.a. - Page 205
Integrated Program EIR
Table of Contents: Index to Analysis
CEOA Section Paae
15122
A. Summary of Proposed Actions and Impacts 15123
Issues to be Resolved: Areas of Controversy b3
Issues Raised by Agencies b2
Intended uses of the EIR 15124 d
Summary of Impacts 15123 bl
B. Project Description 15124
Location and Boundaries
Statement of Objectives
C. General Description of Impact Topics: technical, economic 15124~
and environmental characteristics and supporting public 15125 & 15126
public service facilities
D. Environmental SettingJImpacts and Alternatives by Subarea 15126
Existing conditions, Prior Plans and Regulations bfcld
Impacts of Proposed General Plan albfc
Alternatives. Evaluations and Explanations dl-5
E. Relationship between Short-term uses and long-term
Productivity 15126e & 15127
F. Effects Determined Not Significant 15128
G. Growth Inducing Impacts
Growth inducing impacts of proposal
H. Cumulative Effects 15130
I. Agencies Consulted 15129
List of Maps
Planning AreafArea of Environmental Concern
1990 General Plan Land Use Element
2001 General Plan Update Urban Land Use Element
Land Use Study Area
2001 General Plan Update Circulation Element
Item 9.a. - Page 206
A. Summarv of Proeosed Actions
As outlined in the Notice of Preparation distributed on December 7, 2000, the City of Arroyo
Grande intends to adopt a 2001 General Plan Update, including Land Use, Circulation,
Agriculture, Open Space, Conservation, Housing, Noise, Safety, Economic Development and Park
and Recreation Elements.
The Update focuses on future development of the urban land use area generally within the City
of Arroyo Grande and accommodates an increase in community population from the existing
16,000 to approximately 20,000 residents during the next 20 years, assumed to be "General Plan
Build-Out." Some changes extend beyond City limits and propose revisions to the City's Sphere
of Influence as adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the County of San
Luis Obispo's San Luis Bay Plannina Area-Inland, Land Use Element (County LUE) and possible
refinement to South County Sanitation District's potential Sphere of Influence areas.
The City of Arroyo Grande's 2001 General Plan Update program is located in a larger Planning
Area identified as its "Area of Environmental Concern", as shown on Map EIR-1. When adopted,
the 2001 Update will amend the current adopted 1990 General Plan which is summarized on Map
EIR-2. This prior plan is generally the 'no project" alternative. The draft Urban Land Use
Element map best summarizes the proposed 2001 General Plan Update development pattern as
shown on map EIR-3. Comparison of the prior 1990 General Plan Land Use map and the
proposed 2001 General Plan Update Urban Land Use Element map reveal twelve (12) change or
clarification Land Use Study Areas that will be the focus of this Draft EIR, shown on Map EIR-4.
These maps will be referenced in this program EIR.
With the exception of the 12 Land Use Study Areas shown on Map EIR-4, the 2001 General Plan
Update generally reflects existing uses, present zoning and prior 1990 adopted General Plan
classifications, thus not involving potential impacts associated with changes. There are, however,
some minor alterations proposed to land use classifications and related refinements proposed to
the names, uses and property development standards of various zoning designations defined in
the Development Code and zoning map, both of which will require amendment for consistency
with the 2001 Update. These regulatory alterations, amendments and refinements are
considered a part of this 2001 General Plan Update and Program EIR, although subject to
subsequent Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, recommendations and
decisions not yet initiated.
In addition to the Land Use Element map, the 2001 General Plan Update includes Circulation,
Housing, Noise, Safety, Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, Agriculture, Conservation
and Open Space Elements which also involve refinements or clarifications to policies and
proposals contained in the 1990 General Plan. Most of these other elementsJchanges are
graphically included on the Urban Land Use Element map, but some changes involve'other maps
contained in the 2001 General Plan Update, These will be briefly identified and referred to in the
sections of this Program EIR noted below:
Circulation Element: See VI, TransportationJCirculation Section;
Housina Element: See 11, Population and Housing and also Land Use Element;
Noise Element: See X, Noise Section;
Safetv Element: See 111, Geophysical, and IX Hazards Section(s)
Parks and Recreation Element: See XV, Recreation Section;
Economic Development: Included in Land Use Element; and,
Aqriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element: See IV Water, VII Biological Resources,
VIII Energy and Mineral Resources, XI11 Aesthetics, XIV Cultural Resources and also included
in Land Use Element Section.
Item 9.a. - Page 207
1 " .-
EIR - 2 Item 9.a. - Page 208
Item 9.a. - Page 209
Item 9.a. - Page 210
Issues To Be Resolved; Areas of Controversy
The City of Arroyo Grande's Notice of Preparation explained the anticipated significant effects
that 2001 General Plan Update involves, both directly and indirectly. Alternatives and mitigation
measures to reduce significant effects will be discussed in more detail with each of the 12 Land
Use Study Areas as shown on Map EIR-4. These Initial Study Explanations covering 15 topics are
the issues to be resolved and/or areas of controversy to be addressed in the EIR:
I. Land Use and Planning
Most of the developed areas of the City will remain unchanged when comparing existing
conditions, the 1990 adopted General Plan or the proposed 2001 General Plan Update. There are
some differences, such as expansion of the Village Core and conversion of general commercial
areas along East Grand Avenue to a proposed Mixed-Use designation, which will cause different
impacts. These are generally shown on Map EIR-4 as 12 Land Use Study Areas, discussed later
in this EIR. Because these anticipated changes require zoning reclassifications and amendments
that differ from the adopted General Plan and zoning map and may require some disruption of
the established community, it is apparent that these changes could involve potentially significant
impacts unless mitigated.
The 2001 General Plan Update attempts to protect and preserve agricultural resources and
operations to the maximum extent legally, economically, and environmentally feasible, including
prevention of incompatible land uses on involved and adjoining properties. This proposed policy
precludes certain urban use alternatives and impacts and causes development to occur in a
different pattern, resulting in different impacts than otherwise probable.
The 2001 General Plan Update and EIR will consider the potentially significant impacts and
appropriate mitigation policies, where it can be identified that the Update differs substantially
from either the existing land use pattern or the adopted 1990 General Plan.
11. Population and Housing
As noted in the summary, the 2001 General Plan Update is assumed to provide approximately the
same population and housing capacity as the adopted 1990 General Plan, although redistributed
to include new Mixed Use and Village Commercial expansion. Because the population estimated
for the Update is essentially the same as for the adopted General Plan, it is apparent that they do
not exceed regional projections, nor require major displacement of existing housing. However,
some sub-area increases may require infrastructure changes or involve different traffic impacts.
The 2001 General Plan Update and EIR will evaluate the population and housing impacts
associated with Mixed Use and Village Commercial expansion as well as other changes in density
proposed for new residential developments accommodated by the Update.
111. Geophysical
The adopted General Plan includes the Safety Element addressing most geophysical issues, such
as faults, ground shaking, subsidence, expansive soils, and unique geologic features. The
Update will integrate this element and the mitigation measures, but the potential for increased
landside exposure and erosion are inherent in potential additional hillside development. The
2001 General Plan Update and EIR will identify where these potentially significant impacts are
most probable and suggest further mitigation measures and/or hillside development policies to
require site specific soils and geologic studies prior to development.
EIR - 6 Item 9.a. - Page 211
IV, Water Resources
The impacts of additional growth and development beyond the available water resources was
identified as potentially significant unless mitigated by the 1990 General Plan EIR and will
continue as an issue in the 2001 Update. The pattern of urban development proposed is similar
in most respects and thus "less than significant impacts" are associated with the Update
compared to the prior adopted General Plan. However, the change in quantity of groundwater
withdrawals and the amount of water otherwise available for public supplies associated with
increased population growth and agricultural preservation make these impacts potentially
significant unless mitigated. It is anticipated that the storm drainage and sanitary sewer
treatment and reuse proposals of the adopted General Plan will be continued and reinforced as
part of the 2001 Update. The EIR will identify types of projects and general locations where
changes in drainage, exposure to flooding, degradation of surface water quality, or other project
related impacts are most probable.
V. Air Quality
It is recognized that Arroyo Grande is a small component of regional growth and development in
a region already experiencing air quality problems and non-compliance with certain state and
federal clean air standards. It will be necessary to adopt overriding considerations to continue
growth and development despite this potentially significant impact, which is beyond local agency
ability to mitigate to less than significant.
Land use and circulation patterns are major contributors to the regional air quality problems and
these are planning issues that the City can address. The 2001 Update and EIR will qualitatively
consider policy alternatives such as Mixed Use that may help mitigate excessive travel patterns.
Additionally, estimates based on a traffic model, will allow the EIR to identify where increased
traffic may result in congestion, contributing to increased exposure of sensitive receptors to air
pollution.
VI. Transportation/Circulation
The 2001 General Plan Update and EIR will evaluate the probable increases in vehicle trips and
possible traffic congestion associated with additional regional and local growth and development.
To the extent feasible, by qualitative analysis, it will also discuss areas of insufficient parking,
inadequate access, or apparent barriers to pedestrian, bike and transit alternatives. The Update
will utilize a traffic model to determine where intersection capacity problems and road
deficiencies are most apparent.
The City has recently established a policy to require all proposed development projects with 20 or
more peak hour trips to mitigate traffic impacts not to exceed Level Of Service C considering the
existing circulation system. This may preclude implementation of some General Plan land use
proposals, regardless of Update, and potentially significant impacts may be experienced due to
regional growth, despite the City's intent to mitigate traffic impacts to less than significant. The
2001 General Plan Update EIR and traffic model will identify where circulation deficiencies appear
to preclude proposed land use changes.
VII. Biological Resources
The proposed 2001 Update will involve similar impacts on biological resources as the adopted
1990 General Plan. Increased impacts on creek and wetland habitats and resources will be
mitigated primarily by requiring project specific mitigation and where possible by avoiding
encroachment into sensitive areas. Nonetheless, these impacts on biological resources are
Item 9.a. - Page 212
potentially significant unless mitigated. No new field surveys are part of this 2001 General Plan
Update and EIR, but the Update will identify known sensitive areas where such resource studies
would be required prior to any consideration for development projects.
VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources
The Update does not differ from the adopted General Plan regarding impacts on these resources
and the EIR will not repeat 1990 EIR discussion.
IX. Hazards
The Update will note areas of high fire hazard where development is allowed by both the
adopted 1990 General Plan and proposed 2001 Update. Although it may not be feasible to avoid
exposure to these risks and safety hazards, it may be appropriate to increase required mitigation
measures. No other substantial differences are apparent between the Update and adopted
General Plan related to hazards.
X. Noise
The 2001 General Plan Update and EIR will identify areas of substantial traffic increases that will
contribute to increased noise levels, where these differ from the adopted 1990 General Plan
Noise Element, if any. None of these changes are expected to involve exposure of people to
severe noise levels.
XI. Public Services
The 2001 General Plan Update, by accommodating continued growth and development, to
approximately 20,000 population capacity, a 10°/o increase during the next twenty years, will
impact the demand for additional public services and facilities. Fire and police services are
expected to require additional personnel and equipment, and schools will require additional
facilities and personnel. The EIR will generally identify and quantify the 12 Land Use Study Areas
and sub-areas where growth will occur and estimate the approximate number of personnel and
size and/or type of facilities required to serve this growth. For road and general government
operations and maintenance, the EIR will estimate the needed additional public services by
proportional increase, compared to existing staff and facilities. The 2001 Update will propose
continued use of development impact fees and policies to mitigate additional service needs to
"less than significant."
XII. Utilities and Service Systems
The 2001 General Plan Update will require additional electrical power, natural gas, telephone and
cable television and other energy and communications systems and facilities to serve additional
growth and development, but it is anticipated that these will be increased in capacity with less
than significant impacts. Water, sewer, storm drainage and garbage services are more
complicated and may involve potentially significant impacts unless mitigated. The 2001 General
Plan Update will outline appropriate mitigation measures and estimate where and what type of
facilities or service needs will be associated with the 12 Land Use Study Area's planned growth
and development to reduce impacts to "less than significant."
XIII. Aesthetics
Although growth and development will cumulatively contribute to increased urbanization,
degrading the scenic, open or natural character of Arroyo Grande's vicinity, design and property
Item 9.a. - Page 213
development standards are intended to mitigate these aesthetic impacts to "less than significant,"
The change from rural to urban uses, for example, generally involves potentially significant light
and glare unless mitigated by design review and other controls, most already established.
XIV. Cultural Resources
Continued growth and development as provided by the 2001 General Plan and Update, can be
considered "potentially significant unless mitigated," particularly impacts on historical resources if
not preserved. These impacts will require project specific identification and mitigation, but the
2001 General Plan Update will provide generalized, program level mitigation. (Archeological and
historical resources should be avoided where feasible to assure less than significant impacts, but
where avoidance is not possible, site specific identification, evaluation and mitigation will be
required.)
XV. Recreation
The additional population and development provided for by the 2001 General Plan Update will
increase the demand for neighborhood, community and regional parks and other local
recreational facilities. This impact is considered "potentially significant unless mitigated", but the
Parks and Recreation element contains programs that are intended to reduce this impact to "less
than significant."
Conclusion
Although the 1990 General Plan included a Final EIR and the 2001 General Plan Update involves
essentially the same or similar impacts, it is apparent that either project increases potential
growth and development compared to existing conditions. Some of these impacts are potentially
significant unless mitigated, and others appear individually limited to less than significant but in
combination with other jurisdictions' growth, are "cumulatively considerable." In at least three
topics, water resources, air quality and transportation/circulation, the impact appears potentially
significant and may require overriding considerations for 2001 General Plan Update program
approval. The program level EIR is integrated into the 2001 General Plan Update.
Responses to the Notice of Preparation were received from:
Army Corps of Engineers (ACE)
0 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG);
Department of Fish and Game (DFG), State of California;
City of Grover Beach;
* Lucia Mar Unified School District;
San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building; and,
Air Pollution Control District (APCD).
The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) letter of 12/13/2000 indicated that the General Plan Update
is assigned project number 200100371-LM in the event permits are required from ACE. The
letter outlines examples of the type of projects requiring permits which relate to grading and
drainage modifications, and proposed land use changes discussed in sections I, land use and IV,
water,
Item 9.a. - Page 214
Issues and alternatives raised in SLOCOG letter of 12/30/00 relate primarily to the Circulation
Element, including bike and transit planning and pedestrian oriented facilities, as well as current
Highway 101 Project Study Reports. These will be addressed in the section regarding Circulation.
Department of Fish and Game's letter of 2/20/01 requests consideration of specific impacts to
sensitive plant species (Pismo Clarkia and Well's Manzanita) found in the Arroyo Grande planning
area, as well as creek and wetland habitat impads. These will be discussed in Section I
regarding Land Use changes and Section VII Biological Resources.
City of Grover Beach response letter of 1/18/01 expresses particular environmental concern
regarding drainage and siltation from further development of Meadow Creek (Oak Park
Boulevard) drainage area, This issue will be discussed in Section I regarding Land Use changes
and Section IV water.
Lucia Mar Unified School District letter of 1/8/01 issues or concerns focus on both Land Use
changes and Circulation system improvements. Additional coordination with the City for special
events, sports and recreation programs were also included as concerns. These issues are
discussed in the respective Land Use, Circulation and Parks and Recreation sections of the EIR, I,
VI and XV..
The County Planning Department response of 1/10/01 indicates particular concern with
conservation of prime agricultural land in and adjoining the City, and also suggests a storm water
management program as a part of Utilities and Service Systems analysis. These issues will be
discussed in Section I re Land Use, Sections XI and XII re Community Facilities, Utilities and
Service System of the EIR.
The APCD letter of 1/8/01 requests a complete air quality analysis in the DEIR to adequately
evaluate the overall air quality impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan
Update. APCD recognized that a detailed quantitative emissions analysis is not relevant at this
time, but requested a qualitative analysis including attainment status to State Air Quality
Standards resulting from development. These issues will be addressed in Section V regarding Air
Quality.
Intended Uses of EIR
1) As noted in the summary, the primary purpose of this program EIR is adoption of the 2001
General Plan Update, including Land Use, Circulation, Agriculture, Conservation, Open Space,
Housing, Noise, Safety, Economic Development and Park and Recreation Elements. The EIR will
be considered by the City Planning Commission and City Council prior to recommendations and
action on the 2001 General Plan Update.
2) The County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will also be requested by the City
of Arroyo Grande to consider certain County General Plan Land Use Element amendments within
the Arroyo Grande Fringe Area of the San Luis Bay Plannins Area - Inland document. This EIR
can be used to enact the increased Planning Area Standards for the Residential Suburban
classification in the Arroyo Grande Fringe, proposed as a mitigation measure in Land Use Study
Area 5, which is County jurisdiction.
3) The Local Agency Formation Commission and South County Sanitation District will also be
requested by the City of Arroyo Grande to consider amendments to the adopted Spheres of
Influence. SCSD's Sphere of Influence also includes Land Use Study Area 5, a portion of the
County's Residential Suburban Arroyo Grande Fringe north and northwest of the City. If excluded
from the City's SOI, it would be appropriate to also exclude this area from SCSD's Sphere, both
EIR - 10
Item 9.a. - Page 215
requiring amendments approved by LAFCO. Additionally, Land Use Study Areas 8 and 9
discussed in this EIR, also propose changes to the City's Sphere of Influence that may also
require consideration by SCSD, the County and LAFCO.
This EIR can be used by these other agencies when considering these respective changes to the
Spheres of Influence or subsequent annexations.
4) The City of Arroyo Grande will consider amendments to its Development Code and zoning
map to achieve consistency with the 2001 General Plan Update, once adopted. These changes
are directly related to the implementation of the 2001 General Plan Update and are part of the
actions anticipated by this Program EIR.
5) The City of Arroyo Grande will also consider technical and infrastructure studies and plans
such as Drainage, Water and Sewer Master Plans. These will also be reviewed and updated
subsequent to 2001 General Plan Update and may be amended using this Program EIR as the
relevant environmental document. These infrastructure plans are sometimes considered by other
agencies such as County, State, South County Sanitation District, Regional Water Quality Control
Board or others involved in funding capital improvements.
6) The County of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) are
involved in transportation planning and improvement projects that may implement the 2001
General Plan Update Circulation Element. This Program EIR can be used as a reference
document for consideration of project environmental determinations and initial studies related to
transportation improvements.
Summary of Impacts
This integrated Program EIR has been prepared to evaluate the potentially significant impacts to
the environment that are reasonably expected to result from implementation of the 2001 General
Plan Update. For detailed discussion of potential impacts refer to Sections C and D of this EIR.
In accordance with CEQA, a summary of the program impacts are outlined in Table EIR-1. This
table lists proposed mitigation measures recommended in response to subarea and project
impacts identified in the EIR and a determination of the level of significance of the impact after
mitigation.
EIR - 11 Item 9.a. - Page 216
2) Rancho Grande-Noyes Road 53
ac.@SFR-LD-PD & C/OS = 35du max.
PD&C/OS=2Odu max.
9) Agl, Ag3, Ag4,Ag5,Ag6
xclude 700-1-ac. from SOI, retaining 10)LU2-3 LUlO Lull
60ac. on Hwy 227.
7W&S) Village Area former HC and GC
MFR-PD if GPA for more than 45 du may
require project EIR.
20, 50 or 95 du& potential vs. 20du@ 12) El Camino Real commercial or
prior = LTS assuming Ag buffer. industrial use projects may require
existing industrial,
nd residential uses
POPULATION AND HOUSING
111. GEOPHYSICAL 2) Rancho Grande-Noyes Rd.
certain hillside development areas. 5) Northern SOI-Hwy 227
Seismic hazards mitigated by 8) Fredericks/ALC &Williams -
construction standards. Require Specific Plans & EIRs
EIR - 12
Item 9.a. - Page 217
Project Mitigation Measures
Initiate regional groundwater study
& resource allocations now to
unresolved. Cumulative storm concerns include:
11) E. Grand Ave Mixed Use
12) El Camino Real Mixed Use
irculation Element
use: state ozone standard still allows more sprawl than proposed
exceeded. Update population by 2001 Update. Transportation
projection for Arroyo Grande after
CAP Amendment to
County fringe and South County
growth. Mixed Use & compact
community development would
reduce trips and vehicle miles
traveled vs. suburban sprawl.
CIRCUUl\nON to LOS 'C' in question with all
Circulation Element
assured mitigation, Considerations
EIR - 13 Item 9.a. - Page 218
sites & maximizes Mixed Use Land Use Element
are not addressed in the scope of
GP. No identified mineral resources in
area. No local programs for new
energy conservation measures
proposed nor new facility provided.
Land Use Element
concerns. Major expansion area require project study & mitigation
to traffic noise sources.
olice & fire service capabilities
Developments will provide project
itigation but cumulative growth mitigation measures.
nywhere in Lucia Mar School District
EIR - 14
Item 9.a. - Page 219
Land Use Element
to determine mitigation measures.
include architectural landscape & development stan-
pments contribute
dded land. Need implementation
rograms for recreational trails &
EIR- 15
Item 9.a. - Page 220
Location and Boundaries: The Arroyo Grande Planning Area called the Area of Environmental
Concern (AEC) is shown on Map EIR-1. The Urban Land Use Element, Map EIR-2, is the focus of
the 2001 General Plan Update and composes the center of the Planning Area (AEC). These area
boundaries can be determined in greater detail by use of larger maps on file with the Community
Development Department of the City of Arroyo Grande.
The Land Use Study Areas, Map EIR-4, indicates twelve areas of potential classification changes
inherent in the 2001 General Plan Update, Map EIR-2 when compared to the adopted 1990
General Plan, Map EIR-3. Several of these areas are fully developed and do not involve potential
impads, despite proposed clarification to land use classification changes from 1990 to the 2001
General Plan Update. But, most of these Land Use Study Areas contain undeveloped properties
and/or sensitive environmental resources which may be affected by proposed development
alternatives. The EIR will therefore focus on these 12 Land Use Study areas and identify
significant effects, mitigation measures and afternatives to reduce these effects associated with
each of the potential changes.
Sfafeinent of OL1r'ectives of the Progosed Prooram;
As explained in the Introduction section, the General Plan is the foundation policy document of
the City regarding growth and development. It is required by State law and must contain seven
elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise and Safety. Arroyo
Grande has added three optional elements: Agriculture, Economic Development and Parks and
Recreation.
The fundamental purpose of the 2001 General Plan Update is to comply with State law and
maintain a comprehensive, consistent set of objectives, policies and implementation proposals
that reflect current conditions and evolving community vision of the future. Changes since 1990
include population growth, housing characteristics and needs, traffic conditions, economic
development and commercial trends and increased concerns regarding conservation of small
town character and preservation of prime agricultural lands.
A summary of objectives outlined in the component Elements include:
Agriculture, Open Space and Conservation Element
Ag 1. No net loss of prime farmland soils and conservation of non-prime Agriculture use and
natural resource lands.
Ag 2. Allocate and conserve water resources for agricultural use and minimize potential
Fringe Area and urban development that would divert such resources from agriculture.
Ag 3. Current acreage of agricultural uses within the Arroyo Grande's Area of Environmental
Concern (AEC) shall be maintained
Ag 4. Support continued economic viability of agriculture as a specialized site-specific
industry
Ag 5. Promote compatible coexistence of agricultural and urban land uses (e.g. Ag buffers)
Ag 6, Agriculture classification shall include minimum development standards (2Oac, prime,
40ac. non-prime, ldu/lOac.)
C/ OS 1. Protect visually accessible scenic resources
C/OS 2. Safeguard important environmental and sensitive biological resources contributing
to healthy, functioning eco-system
EIR - 16 Item 9.a. - Page 221
C/OS 3. Plan for a well-maintained system of footpaths and non-vehicular trails that provide
access to areas of non-urban environments
C/OS 4. Preserve historic and cultural resources of public interest that reflect the legacy of
earlier human settlement
C/OS 5. Conservation/Open Space classification shall include minimum development
standards: (Sac., 10ac. or 2Oac. minimum parcels and ldu/lparcel)
C/OS 6. The City of Arroyo Grande shall manage land use and limit its urban development
to that which can be sustained by the available water resources and serviced by
the circulation system and other infrastructure.
Land Use Element
LU 1. The City requests that the County amend its Land Use Element to reduce Residential
Rural and Residential Suburban land uses and density within Arroyo Grande's Fringe
Area and Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)/Planning Area.
LU 2. Accommodate a diversity of single-family residential types and densities within the City.
LU 3. Accommodate a diversity of multiple family residential and special needs housing types
and densities within the City.
LU 4. Provide for a diversity of medical facilities and professional office uses to complement
the character and serve the population of Arroyo Grande by designation as Office
appropriately located areas of the City.
LU 5. Community commercial, office and other compatible land uses shall be located in Mixed
Use areas and corridors both north and south of the freeway in proximity to major
arterial streets.
LU 6. The historic Village Core area shall be sustained, enhanced and expanded as the
symbolic, functional and unique business center of the City, with diverse mixed uses
emphasizing pedestrian-oriented activities and providing for the needs of residents and
tourists.
LU 7. Regional Commercial and Business Park uses shall be located along the freeway
corridor.
LU 8. Automobile related uses, including dealerships, service/repair uses, and light industrial
uses may be conditionally permitted in Mixed Use and Regional Commercial areas to
assure that their design and operations are compatible with adjacent uses.
LU 9. Provide for an adequate supply of Community Facilities at locations to accommodate
existing and planned public and institutional uses.
LU10. Utilize Conservation/Open Space, Planned Development and/or Specific Plan districts or
combining designations for areas of special site development concerns.
LU11.Promote a pattern of land use that protects the integrity of existing land uses, area
resources and infrastructure and involves logical jurisdictional boundaries with adjacent
communities and the County.
LU12. Components of "rural setting" and "small town character" shall be protected.
Circulation Element
C 1. Plan and develop a coordinated and efficient functional classification system of local
streets and highways throughout the community: Maintain Level of Service 'C'.
C 2. Maintain and improve existing infrastructure including roads, streets, transit facilities
and operations, bikeways and pedestrian facilities, to optimize the use of existing
facilities as an alternative to new construction.
C 3. Develop and support multi-modal approaches, including safety enforcement and
educational programs to improve travel safety.
C 4. Develop and support multi-modal transportation including transit, bike lanes and
pedestrian facilities.
EIR - 17 Item 9.a. - Page 222
C 5. Develop land use and circulation patterns that facilitate efficient use of the existing
transportation system and are compatible with existing development.
C 6. Coordinate local transportation planning efforts with County, regional, State and
federal agencies.
Housing Element
H 1. Encourage continuing supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of existing and
future Arroyo Grande residents in all income levels.
H 2. Require all approved General Plan amendments and/or zoning applications that
increase allowed residential density on a property to allocate at least 25% of the
increase be developed for low and moderate-income households by payment of an in-
lieu fee, or dedicating land to be used for development of affordable housing.
H 3. New housing subdivisions or developments of 50 or more units shall provide at least
10°/o of the total units as affordable to low income households, subject to approval of a
density bonus of at least 10%.
H 4. Adopt guidelines for the operation of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and consider
other funding sources to increase low and moderate income housing development.
H 5. Housing for low and moderate-income households shall not be concentrated into a
single building or identifiable portion of a development but dispersed throughout and
integrated into the design.
H 6. Require abatement of unsafe or unsanitary structures including buildings or rooms
inappropriately used for housing contrary to adopted health and safety codes.
H 7. The City shall encourage the conservation of existing mobile home parks, but where
redevelopment is deemed appropriate, the City shall seek replacement-housing
opportunities and provide relocation assistance to eligible residents.
Safety Element
S 1. Attain a high level of emergency preparedness.
S 2. Reduce damage to structures and danger to life caused by flooding, dam failure
inundation and other water hazards.
S 3. Reduce the threat to life, structures and the environment caused by fire.
S 4. Minimize the potential for loss of life and property resulting form geologic and seismic
hazards.
S 5. Reduce the potential for harm to individuals and damage to the environment from
radiation hazards, hazardous materials, electromagnetic fields, radon and hazardous
trees and buildings.
Noise Element
N 1. To protect the citizens of Arroyo Grande from the harmful and annoying effects of
exposure to excessive noise.
N 2. To protect the economic base of Arroyo Grande by preventing incompatible land uses
from encroaching upon existing or planned noise producing uses.
N 3. To preserve the tranquility of residential areas by preventing the encroachment of
noise producing uses.
N 4. To educate the residents of Arroyo Grande concerning the effects of exposure to
excessive noise and the methods available for minimizing such exposure.
N 5. To avoid or reduce noise impacts through site planning and project design, giving
second preference to the use of noise barriers and/or structural modifications to
buildings containing noise-sensitive land uses.
EIR - 18
Item 9.a. - Page 223
Parks and Recreation Element
PR 1. Neighborhood and community park facilities, including the sports complex, should be
provided at a ratio of four acres per 1000 persons (City residents).
PR 2. The City should supplement existing park, recreation and cultural facilities when
needed and financially feasible.
PR 3. Establish a network of recreational trails, bicycle lanes and bikeways for use by local
residents and visitors to Arroyo Grande.
PR 4. The City will consider all available financing and acquisition techniques in the
development of parks and recreation facilities.
PR 5. City parks and recreation facilities should be maintained in an attractive and functional
condition.
Economic Development Element
ED 1. Create an economic development-marketing program to promote the City's balanced
image and implement the Redevelopment Plan Implementation Strategy.
ED 2. Enhance business retention and expansion consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Policies.
ED 3. Encourage and support the retention and expansion of Agriculture business activities.
ED 4. Protect and promote the overall commercial service and retail business sectors of the
local economy.
ED 5. Become an active participant in the SLO Countywide tourism programs.
ED 6. Promote development of affordable housing in accordance with the General Plan
Housing Element.
EIR - 19 Item 9.a. - Page 224
C. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT TOPICS: Technical, Economic and
Environmental Charaderistics and Su~portin~ Public Service Facilities
I. Land Use and Planning. The 1990 General Plan Final EIR, Table 1, Land Use Summary
estimated that the 2885 acres of residential districts within the City had the potential to
accommodate 7575 dwelling units, and an approximate population capacity of 19,500.
Approximately 600 acres of commercial, industrial and public facility land use categories were
estimated to provide approximately 5.1 million square feet of potential non-residential building
area.
The City boundaries have changed very little in the 11-year period since 1990 with only a 50-acre
low-density residential annexation added northeast of James Way near Rodeo Drive. Internal
developments, particularly in the northwest quadrant of the City have utilized most of the 1112
acres classified as "vacant" from 1987 land use inventory. Three large Planned Developments -
Oak Park Acres, Rancho Grande and Royal Oak Estates - have dramatically changed the former
undeveloped hills into numerous, low density single family residential subdivisions separated by
several large open space areas composed of steeper canyons. The commercial north side of
Freeway 101 along West Branch Street from Brisco to Oak Park Boulevard developed with the
large "Five Cities Shopping Center" as part of this quadrant of Planned Development. Other
portions of the City experienced smaller scale developments, infilling scattered vacant properties
within the predominantly built up areas. In the southwest quadrant of the City, a specific plan for
a neo-traditional residential subdivision known as Berry Gardens was approved, enabling homes
in former agricultural field north of Soto Sports Complex. To the southeast of Arroyo Grande
High School, Vista del Mar converted former undeveloped hillside within the City into a low
density residential custom home subdivision, while outside the City Falcon Ridge Estates replaced
former hillside grazing. To the east, near Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road former
agricultural field was subdivided for single family homes.
From 1990 to 2000, the City of Arroyo Grande issued building permits for approximately 850
dwelling units, almost all of which are entirely single family residential. Concurrently, 54 permits
for new coymercial building were issued, the majority for offices. The early 19901s, during
national recession, was a period of relatively slow growth with an average of 40 new homes per
year and annual permit valuation of approximately $10 million. The 1995 to 2000 period in
comparison, was almost triple this annual activity with an average of 125 homes and permit
valuation of almost $26 million. The population growth from 14,215 in 1990 to 15,851 in 2000
reflects an average of under 1°/o annually.
The 2001 General Plan Update reflects the fact that the City of Arroyo Grande is reaching "build-
out", with relatively limited remaining vacant, undeveloped land available for continued single
family residential subdivision. Once rural areas of South County, particularly the unincorporated
community of Nipomo and adjoining Mesa area are growing at rates more than double that of
Arroyo Grande, absorbing much of the regional residential development pressure.
The developed land use pattern in and around the City of Arroyo Grande will constrain population
growth in the future and require that much of the new housing be higher density multiple family
rather than low density single family. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes mostly Mixed Use
and Village Core development opportunities. Of the 12 Land Use study areas involving change
from the 1990 General Plan, four containing approximately 125 acres enable a total potential of
85 single family residential dwellings, while four other Mixed Use areas containing approximately
80 acres are estimated to provide more than 320 multiple-family dwelling unit potential.
EIR - 20 Item 9.a. - Page 225
It is uncertain whether the future land use change, involving different housing type and density,
will be accepted in the regional market or population growth will instead seek alternative low
density single family development areas. If given the choice, based on historic trends, however,
it is probable that low density residential development in the Nipomo Mesa area will accelerate
rather than shift to multiple family, mixed use housing projected in the City of Arroyo Grande. It
is apparent that the City has few available expansion areas to continue providing low-density
single family residential developments, unless it enables conversion of prime Agriculture lands to
the northeast and south or commits the eastern Arroyo Linda Crossroads Specific Plan to more
hillside residential use than commercial and business park uses currently planned. While these
alternatives would respond to short term housing market preferences, they would substantially
erode long term Agriculture productivity and eliminate the only significant opportunity for future
urban expansion within the City along the Freeway 101 corridor, Arroyo Linda Crossroads. In a
regional perspective, approximately 500 acres composing the FrederickIALC and Williams
properties east of the urban developed City of Arroyo Grande might be an alternative low-density
hillside residential expansion area with 250 or more homesites replacing grazing. This pattern
could continue around Picacho Hill on both sides of Freeway 101 displacing vineyards and other
agricultural uses eventually merging with Nipomo and Mesa developments in a sprawling South
County extension of "Five Cities". Clearly, this land use and planning alternative is not the future
pattern preferred by Arroyo Grande citizens. But, unless the County curtails rapid urban
suburban and rural residential development in the unincorporated community of Nipomo and
across the Mesa, it is the apparent potential. Recognizing that Arroyo Grande and other parts of
the "Five Cities" area are now filling up should cause the County to evaluate regional land use
and planning impacts before Nipomo and the Mesa become the sixth and seventh cities.
The City of Arroyo Grande 2001 General Plan Update, by restricting land use and population
growth to reflect apparent resource and infrastructure constraints to urban expansion may
inadvertently contribute to acceleration of unincorporated South County suburban sprawl, This is
an avoidable impact alternative outside the jurisdiction and control of the City, requiring planning
and growth management mitigation by the County of San Luis Obispo.
11. Population and Housina. As noted above, the 2001 General Plan Update redistributes
projected population from continued low density single family residential development to new
Mixed Use and Village Core multiple family housing potential. The 1990 General Plan build-out
population of 19,500 remains as the 2001 General Plan Update estimated capacity. The rate of
population growth and housing development within the City is projected to continue at
approximately 1% average annual increase, but this assumes a shift in housing type and density
that has not historically been a substantial part of the market. From 1990 to 2000 very few
multiple family dwellings have been constructed in Arroyo Grande and this type and density of
housing may not conform to the rural, small town character preferred by current residents.
Nonetheless, the opportunities for continued low density single family residential development in
Arroyo Grande are few, unless prime Agriculture land is converted or the proposed eastern
expansion area is committed to hillside residential rather than Specific Planned commercial and
Business Park urban development.
The lack of continued large scale Planned Development for low density single family subdivisions
in the City of Arroyo Grande, combined with similar build-out within Grover Beach and Pismo
Beach will probably accelerate suburban sprawl in Nipomo and Mesa areas of the South County.
Another apparent unintended alternative, also involving unincorporated area, is increased
development pressure in the large Arroyo Grande Fringe Area north of the City. While already
fragmented and generally lacking adequate roads and other infrastructure, this Fringe Area
contains approximately 2865 acres classified as Residential Suburban and 3585 acres classified as
Residential Rural. At currently allowed densities of 1 acre and 5 acre homesites, this Arroyo
EIR - 21 Item 9.a. - Page 226
Grande Fringe Area implies a potential for more than 2700 rural and suburban homesites and a
population in excess of 8000 residents in a 10 square mile area.
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes to avoid or reduce this apparent Fringe Area potential by
excluding 700 acres of northern Sphere of Influence area from the City's urban reserve and
requesting the County to increase the minimum lot size to ldu12.5 acres in the RS classified area.
The population and housing impacts of the ZOO1 General Plan Update imply a shift from low-
density single family residential to higher density multiple family and Mixed Use housing which
are not probable unless the County precludes continued suburban and rural low density sprawl in
alternative growth areas. Although beyond the control of the City of Arroyo Grande, the
proposed 2001 General Plan Update will contribute to accelerated suburban sprawl of low density
housing and population growth in Nipomo, the Mesa and Arroyo Grande Fringe Area unless
prevented by County planning and growth management. Conversely, it is improbable that Mixed
Use and multiple family housing alternatives proposed by the 2001 Update will occur unless
unincorporated area sprawl alternatives are precluded.
111. Geophvsical The proposed 2001 General Plan Update provides for approximately 500 acres
of urban expansion to the east including FredericVALC and Williams properties, while proposing
to exclude approximately 700 acres from the adopted Sphere of Influence to the north along
Printz, Noyes and Oak Park Roads. From geophysical impact comparison, the topography,
drainage, soils and hazards associated with eastern rather than northern expansion involve
substantially fewer problems although both are hillside terrain. The few remaining internal areas
proposed for further low density residential development by the 2001 General Plan Update also
involve difficult grading and erosion impacts and increased landside or seismic hazards with
potential additional hillside development.
Most of these geophysical impacts can be avoided or reduced by hillside development policies
and site-specific design and mitigation measures, to less than significant cumulative impact. Of
the 12 internal land use study areas proposed by the 2001 General Plan Update, approximately
130 acres of hillside terrain compose five subareas within the northwest quadrant of the City,
while more than 700 acres of County Fringe Area to the north is proposed to be excluded from
urban expansion. The proposed addition of 500 acres of urban expansion to the east will be
separately evaluated by pending Specific Plan and EIR for Arroyo Linda Crossroads and similar
future studies of Williams property potential.
The 2001 General Plan Update incorporates Safety Element policies intended to mitigate hillside
development hazards. Additional site-specific geologic studies prior to development will be
required to resolve appropriate Specific Plan and Planned Development design and mitigation
measures for cumulative geophysical impacts.
IV. Water Resources. The 1990 General Plan Final EIR identified that the City of Arroyo Grande
has an estimated total of 1200 acre feet of groundwater supply from the Arroyo Grande Sub-
basin, about 100 acre feet groundwater supply from the Pismo formation and 2290 acre feet
entitlement from Lopez Lake. The groundwater resources are part of voluntary agreements for
unallocated 9500 acre feet estimated safe annual yield of the larger basin capacity utilized by
agriculture and other jurisdictions.
The Urban Water Master Plan prepared in 1985 estimated that water resources available to
Arroyo Grande could support a population of 19,388 based on average daily water consumption
of 167 gallons per capita. According to the Water System Master Plan, adopted in July 1999,
from 1987 to 1997 water production records indicate that per capita consumption varied from
151 to 197 gallons per person per day.
EIR - 22
Item 9.a. - Page 227
Based on per capita consumption of 190 gallons per person per day, the maximum average
considered appropriate at that time, the 1990 City population of 14,057 was consuming 2990
acre feet per year. If the same rate of consumption were continued to the projected 19,500 City
population at General Plan build-out, it was estimated that approximately 4148 acre feet per year
of water resources would be required, 556 acre feet more than currently available. This
significant adverse impact of inadequate water resources for maximum build-out under the
proposed land use plan was discounted by noting that development generally reaches
approximately 75 to 80% of maximum build-out based on potential land use at maximum
density. The 1990 plan assumed 80% of maximum build-out or approximately 16,000 population
and estimated that existing water resources could serve the planned build-out at or below 17,000
residents, The 1990 FEIR identified the water deficiency as a "significant but mitigable" impact
that would require either an additional water supply or limitations on development so as not to
exceed existing supply.
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes that average per capita consumption be reduced by
conservation measures to a maximum of 160 gallons per person per day. More detailed
mitigation measures will be outlined in subsequent Water Management Master Plan studies to
achieve this reduced per capita average consumption. Increased residential density, more
efficient landscape irrigation and other water conservation including more efficient Agriculture
irrigation may contribute to better utilization of available water resources. Use of storm water
retention and possible re-use of treated wastewater for park and/or agriculture irrigation are
among the mitigation measures to reduce per capita consumption. But until more accurate
estimates of safe annual yield of groundwater and formal allocation of resources are
accomplished, the potential exists for over-drafting the estimated basin capacity. Lopez Lake
entitlements are also subject to alteration based on reduction due to siltation, seismic safety or
environmental mitigation measures.
Groundwater quantity as well as quality can also be substantially impacted by County Residential
Rural and Residential Suburban Fringe Area developments not currently calculated as part of
regional water resource consumption potential.
For these reasons, and because supplemental sources such as Lake Nacimiento Project or State
Coastal Aqueduct Project water resources are unresolved, the 2001 General Plan Update EIR
considers water resource deficiency a significant impact without apparent mitigation. It should
be recognized that the 1990 General Plan discounted prior general plan capacity estimates and
that the 2001 General Plan Update only re-distributes the current adopted build-out potential of
about 19,500. Nonetheless, the current population of almost 16,000 within the City may be
approaching the safe annual yield and City entitlements of existing water resources if the City
does not achieve reduced per capita consumption.
Although the "no project" alternative of the 1990 General Plan is equally adverse, the City must
confront this water resource deficiency as a cumulative significant adverse impact of continued
regional population growth. Mitigation to 'less than significant" is beyond the, control of the City
and reliance must be on cooperative County and regional agency planning and growth
management. A Statement of Overriding Considerations per CEQA Section 15093 and/or one of
the findings of CEQA Section 15091 is considered necessary for this potential significant impact.
Regarding water storage and distribution, the City's five water storage tanks in three separate
pressure zones, in combination with well production, delivered water for both peak daily water
use and emergency purposes. The Water System Master Plan recommends that the City upgrade
its storage and distribution systems to correct apparent deficiencies. The Main zone will require
an additional 1 million gallon additional storage or recommended replacement of Reservoir No. 1
with a new 2.0 million gallon reservoir for a total main zone storage of 5.0 million gallons. The
EIR - 23 Item 9.a. - Page 228
Oro pressure zone will need an additional 0.75 million gallon storage tank at Reservoir No. 3 site
and some improved transmission mains and booster station to connect with the Rancho Grande
zone. Numerous distribution system improvement projects are identified in the Water Master
Plan to correct existing deficiencies and enable future buildout. These include large mains in East
Grand Avenue from Halcyon to Oak Park; Arroyo Grande Creek crossing at Fair Oaks; cast iron
pipe replacement along Fair Oaks, Halcyon and Cornwall Streets; larger mains in the Harloe
School area; and mains along Myrtle Street, West El Camino Real, Farroll Avenue, Cherry Avenue
and other local areas (See Water Master Plan).
Generally, these deficiency correction capital improvement projects will also enable water storage
and delivery to the projected 2001 General Plan Update build-out or alternative 'no project' 1990
General Plan land use pattern. These water system improvements would be required mitigation
measures if additional development is proposed in deficient areas prior to planned and
recommended improvement projects. With refinement of these mitigation measures the water
storage and distribution systems are considered adequate for 2001 General Plan Update
purposes. It should be noted that easterly expansion known as Arroyo Linda Crossroads will be
the subject of a separate Specific Plan and EIR to address this potential development.
As a separate water related issue, a Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared in 1999 defines the
major drainage systems serving the City. The City is essentially composed of three drainage
zones containing 5 retention basins and 9 detention basins (6 of which are private). More than
$1.3 million of 'high priority" improvement projects and $0.6 million of "medium priority"
improvement projects are identified in the Drainage Master Plan, generally to correct existing
deficiencies. However, several additional deficiencies affecting East Grand Avenue, Soto Sports
Complex and Tally Ho Road north of the Village are not included but would be needed to correct
existing deficiencies and accommodate planned development. These drainage improvements do
not necessarily address project related impacts associated with the 12 land use study areas
outlined as potential change areas when comparing 1990 and 2001 General Plan Update,
Several of these, particularly in Meadow Creek watershed, require site specific retardation basin
mitigation measures.
The City should formulate a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Program to reduce urban
contaminants from direct discharge into the creek system, including inlet filters, settlement ponds
an other methods.
Additionally, East Grand Avenue and El Camino Real Mixed Use development areas within the 670
acre Drainage Zone A relying on infiltration (recharge) basins will require additional ponding
basin expansion. The large Drainage Zone B containing more than 2100 acres drains to Arroyo
Grande Creek, composing the eastern two thirds of the City. Project specific impact studies will
be required to evaluate the water quality and capacity constraints affecting the Village Core and
other eastern urban expansion potential such as Arroyo Linda Crossroads and Williams
properties. Generally, however, these project related drainage issues are considered capable of
mitigation to less than significant.
V Air Oualitv. The Existina Settina and Communitv Issues Re~ort of the 1990 General Plan
included a chapter devoted to description of climate, air quality standards and air pollution trends
and corrective strategies. In simple terms, the 1990 General Plan was described as a project
involving approximately 20,000 population and almost 400 acres of commercial development, but
recognizing that the bulk of development and population is already built. The Final EIR for 1990
General Plan adoption estimated that "development will increase the production of air pollutants
to 9.5 tons per day", described as a significant but mitigable impact. These estimates were
based on build-out with a total of 205,500 vehicle trips generated by 7575 dwelling units and
approximately 400 acres of non-residential uses: Carbon monoxide represents 76% of the total
EIR - 24 Item 9.a. - Page 229
pollution, oxides of nitrogen 15%, and total organic gases 9% of the total based on air quality
model of the 1990 plan.
The 1998 Clean Air Plan (CAP) notes that state air quality standards adopted to protect public
health, vegetation and visibility are currently exceeded for ozone and fine particulate matter
(PMlo) in San Luis Obispo County. The State Air Resources Board has designated the County as
a non-attainment area for these pollutants and the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control
District is the agency responsible for developing and updating the attainment plan for the County.
Implementation of the 1998 CAP is expected to bring the County into attainment of State ozone
standards within five years, including reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen.
The California Clean Air Ad (CCAA) requires the 1998 CAP include the following components:
Application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and District permitting designed
to allow no net increase in emissions from stationary sources of a certain size;
e Application of BACT and reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for all other
existing emission sources;
Implementation of RACT for transportation control measures sufficient to substantially
reduce the growth rate of motor vehicle trips and miles traveled; and,
Development of control programs for area sources and indirect sources of emissions.
Emission control measures already implemented in the CAP include:
e Vapor recovery from industrial and commercial operations;
Solvent content reduction;
Improved transfer efficiency;
Retrofitting gasoline and diesel engines to burn cleaner fuel or replace with electric
motors;
Catalytic or chemical reduction;
e Reduced vehicle use (carpool, transit, telecommute, bike and other trip reduction); and,
New source review and indirect source review.
According to the CAP, reductions achieved by prior measures have exceeded the 20% minimum
targets for both ROG and NOx emission sources, but attainment of State ozone standard has not
yet been accomplished. This is due in part to pollutant transport from areas outside the County.
But the ARB anticipates continued projections of ROG and NOx emission reduction due to cleaner
cars expected in the vehicle fleet. The ARB has primary responsibility for controlling emissions
from motor vehicle, fuels and consumer products at the state level, while the APCD is the
regional agency responsible for implementation of the CAP and enforcing emissions controls for
stationary and indirect sources. At the local level, city and county government and regional
transportation agencies such as SLOCOG play an important role in transportation control
measures and land use planning strategies. City and County planning agencies are required by
law to determine that new development is consistent with the CAP prior to granting project
approval.
Arroyo Grande is part of the Coastal Plateau region of San Luis Obispo County, containing about
75% of the county population and employment facilities.
Arroyo Grande is part of the San Luis Bay Planning Area projected to increase from about 43881
population in 1990 to 57222 by 2010. Arroyo Grande composed 14215 population in 1990 and is
, projected to 18676 by 2010, but provides no increase after 2010 in anticipation of General Plan
buildout.
EIR - 25 Item 9.a. - Page 230
Communities within the San Luis Bay Planning Area are projected to continue population growth
at rates ranging from Pismo Beach at 44% to Avila Beach at 16% with Arroyo Grande projected
at 31% increase from 1990 to 2010.
In comparison, Nipomo and its rural environs composing South County Planning Area are
projected to increase from 14845 in 1990 to 25,199 in 2010. This reflects a 45% increase in
rural area and a 99% growth rate between 1990 and 2010 in the community of Nipomo.
It is evident that the Clean Air Plan anticipates population growth to continue in Arroyo Grande at
about the same rate as San Luis Obispo County as a whole, but at a rate substantially slower
than South County and Nipomo.
The 2001 General Plan Update is consistent with the 1998 Clean Air Plan which projects Arroyo
Grande population not to exceed 18,676 by 2010. And the 2001 City General Plan Update
proposes many of the land use planning and transportation control measures recommended by
the 1996 Guide for Communities of San Luis Obis~o County: "Creating Transportation Choices
through Development Design and Zoning". The intent of the Update proposals to create Mixed
Use corridors and Village Core enhancement, for example are strategies to reduce vehicle trips
and miles traveled compared to suburban regional growth alternatives.
Chapter 6 of the 1998 CAP describes the relationship between transportation and land use
management strategies with Transportation Control Measures intended to reduce vehicle use and
facilitate alternative transportation options. Slow speeds and congestion tend to increase
emissions of most vehicle pollutants and short trips create disproportionately large ROG
emissions. NOx emissions tend to increase in proportion to trip length and vehicle speed, making
miles traveled for longer trips an important factor. Currently, average vehicle occupancy surveys
indicate 90% of commute trips have only one occupant except along the 101 corridor where
average vehicle occupancy during peak commute was estimated at 1.3 to 1.4 between South
County and the City of San Luis Obispo.
The CAP identifies three mechanisms available for influencing regional travel behavior:
o Market based programs such as parking fees, vehicle emissions fee or fees for vehicle
miles traveled;
* Command and control measures such as school based or employer based trip reduction
programs; and
o Local agencies can also adopt transit programs or develop facilities such as park and ride
lots, transit stops and bike lanes to encourage alternative transportation.
Other long term planning strategies with air quality and other benefits are improved jobs/housing
balance, planning compact communities and providing more Mixed Use development to reduce
trips and vehicle mile traveled.
While the 2001 General Plan Update proposes a major emphasis on new Mixed Use
developments and provides for higher density multiple family housing in close proximity to major
traffic generators, the overall regional land use pattern is clearly one of dispersed low density
suburban and rural character. The Circulation Element will promote alternative transportation
such as transit, biking, walking and carpooling. However, improved traffic flow by maintaining
Level of Service 'C' can also encourage more vehicle use even if accompanied by better
alternative transportation modes.
Finally, the 2001 General Plan Update proposes a reduction in Residential Rural and Suburban
Arroyo Grande Fringe Area development to promote more compact City Mixed Use and Village
EIR - 26 Item 9.a. - Page 231
Core development pattern, Although beyond the scope of this General Plan Update, reduced
Residential Rural and Suburban growth in the Nipomo area of South County are addFional
planning strategies proposed for LAFCO, County, SLOCOG and APCD consideration. Priqr to
2010, the Clean Air Plan should be re-evaluated based on these revised land use and growth
strategies to enable 2001 General Plan Update build-out projections in excess of 18,676.
Until compliance with State air quality standards is attained, however, this EIR considers
cumulative low density residential growth and dispersed employment and shopping patterns
conducive to excessive vehicle trips and miles to traveled criteria. The predominant pattern of
development in Arroyo Grande including many proposed projects to infill the segregated, low
density, suburban residential portions of the City continue to rely on motor vehicle use. Because
this pattern is characteristic of all of Five Cities and sprawl continues with regional development
in Arroyo Grande Fringe and Nipomo Mesa, the potential air quality impacts are considered
potentially significant and unavoidable unless the County alters regional land use and
transportation planning strategies.
The City will consider a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Section 15093
andjor one of the findings of CEQA Section 15091 for adoption of the 2001 General Plan Update.
It will integrate land use and circulation mitigation measures proposed by the Update to reduce
potential regional air quality impacts, but not to level of less than significant.
The 1990 General Plan Existins Settinq and Communitv Issues Report included a chapter
regarding Transportation infrastructure, The street system includes Freeway 101, State Highway
227 and numerous arterial and coliector routes traversing the local access street network. The
major street system lacks adequate connection with the Freeway and the freeway bisects the City
with inadequate cross-town routes. The circulation system also includes many dead-end or
unconnected local access streets which makes circulation and cross-town travel especially difficult
for persons not familiar with the local street pattern. Most major streets traverse developed
urban areas and are further constrained by topographic barriers such as creeks, hills and
canyons. These circulation deficiencies contribute to congestion of the major and collector street
network with few feasible alternatives for improvement.
The 1990 General Plan Final EIR identified traffic as a potential "significant but mitigable impact".
It projected that additional development will increase traffic in the City from 131,000 to 214,000
vehicle trips per day (1.2 million vehicle miles). Needed improvements were identified in the
Circulation Element but funding mechanisms for mitigation were not established. Many areas of
the City are low-density residential developments lacking sidewalk or bicycle facilities and not
feasibly serviced by efficient convenient public transportation.
Arterial and collector traffic congestion, as measured by Level of Service criteria, has substantially
worsened since 1990 despite project mitigation measures and collection of traffic impact fees in
the City. Although the County collects similar development impad road fees in the South County
Nipomo area, it does not mitigate traffic increases in the Arroyo Grande Fringe nor
unincorporated Oceano urban area, both of which generally traverse the City of Arroyo Grande
along Elm, Grand and Oak Park Roads to access Freeway 101. Additionally, traffic from Nipomo
Mesa rural developments often traverse Arroyo Grande along Valley, Halcyon, Brisco Roads and
Fair Oaks Avenue to reach Freeway 101. Southbound area traffic from Nipomo and Oceano, also
use Los Berros and El Campo Roads to access Freeway 101.
These regional circulation problems, most deficient within the city, will be further aggravated by
Rural and Suburban growth regardless of the development pattern enabled by 1990 City General
EIR - 27
Item 9.a. - Page 232
Plan or 2001 General Plan Update. The Circulation Element Update Map EIR-5 will be evaluated
by use of a traffic model to identifj, existing and projected deficient segments and intersections
but correction of these deficiencies to LOS 'C' criteria desired by the City will be extremely
difficult if not infeasible considering regional development patterns and existing deficiencies.
Improvement to Freeway 101 interchange configurations at El Campo, Traffic Way, Fair Oaks,
Grand, Halcyon, Brisco, and Oak Park Roads, for example, are unresolved regional circulation
problems directly affecting development potential in the City of Arroyo Grande.
Highway 227 and Lopez Drive concentrates both through traffic and truck traffic along E. Branch
Street through the heart of the Village. E. Grand Avenue is the major gateway arterial street
providing regional access to Grover Beach, Pismo Beach and Oceano coastal areas. Thus, the
City is confronted with an inadequate circulation system and regional growth patterns which
impact the City street network regardless of internal growth and development alternatives. The
2001 General Plan Update can only redistribute local traffic, seek regional trip reduction by better
land use strategies, and propose resional cooperation to correct existing circulation deficiencies.
Preliminary traffic model analysis reveals significant 2020 deficiencies on Freeway 101, El Campo,
Traffic Way, Fair Oaks, Halcyon, Elm, E. Grand, Oak Park, Brisco, El Camino Real, W. Branch, E.
Branch, and many collector streets as well as local streets functioning as arterial or collector
routes. These models and development alternatives will be the subject of traffic study report
concurrent with Circulation Element Update consideration, but it is apparent that significant
traffic impacts are unavoidable in the City regardless of 2001 General Plan Update or retention of
the 1990 Circulation Element. Except for major growth and development project alternatives
such as Specific Plan for Arroyo Linda Crossroads, accompanied by El Campo and Traffic Way
circulation improvements, the regional traffic network deficiencies involve significant unavoidable
impacts with 'no project' or any apparent land use alternatives.
statement of Overriding Consideration pursuant to CEQA Section 15093 and/or one of the
findings of CEQA Section 15091 will be necessary for 2001 General Plan Update adoption, The
most effective long- term transportation and circulation mitigation measures are dependent on
regional network improvements, Mixed-Use and higher density land use developments and future
potential shift to increased use of alternative transportation. None of these mitigations is feasible
at the local level without County, Caltrans, SLOCOG and other adjoining jurisdictions cooperation
and increased priority for funding improvements as well as studies.
Some reduction to projected significant traffic impacts can be achieved by project alternatives
and mitigation measures associated with local development, but redistribution of additional trips
in a deficient network does not alleviate the basic circulation problems associated with regional
growth. None of the 12 Land Use Study area alternatives nor the several Circulation Element
project study alternatives provide a solution to the fundamental network deficiencies evident in
Arroyo Grande.
VII Biolosical Resources
The proposed 2001 General Plan Update will not substantially impact biological resources
identified in the 1990 General Plan if accompanied by recommended project mitigation measures.
The Existins Settins and Communitv Issues Report of the 1990 plan identified most riparian area
biotic resources along Arroyo Grande, Tally Ho and Meadow Creek branches. Coastal oak
woodland, grassland and chaparral habitat areas were concentrated in the northwest and
southeast areas of the City where Planned Development had not yet been implemented. The
1990 General Plan FEIR concluded that significant riparian and wetland areas as well as landmark
tree groves will be preserved. In 1990 the FEIR summary concluded "no significant impact"
despite development continuing in areas supporting remnant significant species and isolation of
EIR - 28
Item 9.a. - Page 233
wildlife habitat areas assuming that large areas with native vegetation outside the City to the
north, east and southeast that also help preserve native vegetation and wildlife remain rural or
undeveloped. Numerous mitigation measures contained in the 1990 Land Use Element and Open
Space and Conservation Element policies were cited to conserve biological resources within the
City and reduce biological impacts to less than significant,
Few residents would argue, however, that cumulative urban and rural developments are eroding
the residual natural environment including sensitive plant and animal species. The 2001 General
Plan Update EIR will more closely examine the twelve land use study areas where proposed land
use changes would amend the 1990 General Plan. Each project involving a sensitive residual
habitat area will be required to provide site-specific survey and environmental analysis prior to
further Planned Development, particularly for vegetated hillside and canyon areas or contributing
to riparian and wetland drainage degradation. Conservation and Open Space classification and
combining designations are expanded by the 2001 General Plan Update and additional
Agriculture, and Land Use policies are proposed to further mitigate biological resource impacts.
The intent of the 2001 General Plan is to redistribute additional Planned Development to the least
sensitive portions of residual sites and maximize Mixed Use opportunities for further urban
development of lands already partially committed to urban use, preserving and conserving
important remaining resource areas. But, implementation programs for riparian corridor
restoration, wetland area conservation and wildlife habitat preservation are at best "general".
And, storm water pollution prevention programs are totally absent and should be added.
The major proposals for Agriculture and open space preservation and resource conservation rely
on development project review and private land use compatible with natural resources. These
resources are much less disturbed in the large Arroyo Grande Fringe Area north of the City.
Unless the County substantially improves land use and property development standards in this 10
square mile Fringe Area, the impacts of cumulative urban development impacts on residual
habitat areas within the 5 square mile City limits will be relatively insignificant. Additionally, the
City and County will need to cooperate regarding Agriculture and Rural Land conservation
practices to better protect natural biological areas in the Area of Environmental Concern
surrounding Arroyo Grande, The 2001 General Plan Update viewed in this perspective proposes
less than significant refinements to the 1990 General plan. The basic City mitigation measures
possible with individual development project implementation are miniscule compared to regional
development alternatives controlled by the County. The impacts of the 2001 General Plan
Update are considered less than significant in this program EIR context.
VIII Enersv and Mineral Resources
As noted in the Notice of Preparation, the 2001 General Plan Update does not differ from the
adopted 1990 General Plan regarding impacts on these resources. The 1990 EIR conclusion that
there are no identified mineral resource areas was reinforced by the Existinq Settinq and
Communihr Issues Report. While energy generation and conservation are currently major state
and national concerns, there are no apparent General Plan impacts or mitigation measures
related to these problems of inadequate generation and distribution. New energy conservation
measures and more facilities may be required but these are beyond the scope of this program
EIR and the 2001 General Plan Update to address.
IX. Hazards. The Safety Element of the 2001 General Plan Update is essentially intended as a
series of policy mitigation measures to address urban area natural and man-made hazards. Most
of the 12 Land Use Study area changes proposed by 2001 Update refinements to the 1990
General Plan involve reduction to or no substantial difference related to hazards. Particularly in
Study Area 5 involving County Residential Suburban Fringe Area development north of the City of
EIR - 29
Item 9.a. - Page 234
Arroyo Grande, the proposed elimination of Sphere of Influence for urban expansion and
increased parcel size for reduced development density are important alternatives in a natural
high-risk fire hazard area. The County should pursue further mitigation of this serious hazard, by
installation, equipping and operation of an additional County fire station in this area at least on a
seasonal basis, to correct fire response time deficiencies now dependent on mutual aid response
by The City of Arroyo Grande. Other proposed land use study areas as well as the County Fringe
Area involve increased exposure to fire, slope stability and seismic hazards but these are
generally considered capable of project specific mitigation to less than significant impacts,
assuming adherence to Planned Development project design and current construction standards.
In the Village Core adjoining Arroyo Grande and Tally Ho Creeks, the General Plan Update
proposes Mixed-Use development and some increased residential potential in flood hazard and
dam failure inundation areas not mentioned in the 1990 General Plan EIR. Site-specific and
project-specific flood and fire hazard mitigation measures such as fire suppression systems, flood
proofing or special design for planned Mixed-Use developments will be determined on a case by
case basis, reducing potential hazard impacts to less than significant. These hazards should,
however, be avoided with new essential public facilities and possible relocation of public safety
buildings and equipment such as the headquarters fire station and city administrative offices.
The further consideration of civic and other public facilities expansion within the Village Core
versus the South County Regional Center site on West Branch Street should carefully evaluate
safety issues and alternatives. With proper hazard mitigation however, the development pattern
proposed by the 2001 General Plan Update involves less than significant impact changes to the
1990 General Plan.
X Noise. The 1990 Existincl Setting and Communitv Issues Report contained a summary of noise
issues and impacts also addressed in the Noise Element of the 1990 General Plan. The 1990
General Plan Final EIR acknowledged that development will increase additional vehicles which
may cause increased noise impacts to residents but concluded that proper planning and design
will mitigate otherwise significant impacts to less than significant.
The 12 Land Use Study areas proposed for refinement of the 1990 General Plan by the 2001
General Plan Update involve several Mixed-Use areas that may include residential uses in close
proximity to major arterial noise sources. These Mixed-Use areas will require site specific and
project specific design and construction evaluations to determine necessary mitigation measures.
In most instances, site planning to separate residential uses from directly adjacent traffic noise
sources will prevent unacceptable noise levels. It is evident that Mixed-Use areas will differ in
composition depending on location, parcel size, existing uses in the area, access, adjoining
facilities and services, compatible neighboring uses and similar considerations. Not all Mixed-
Use areas will enable or include substantial residential development. In any event, the Noise
Element contains policies and standards to enable project-by-project evaluations and mitigation
to less than significant impact.
XI Public Services. The City of Arroyo Grande police department is responsible for law
enforcement, investigations and crime prevention programs within the City limits. The fire
department, composed largely of volunteers, is responsible for providing fire protection. The
1990 Existing Setting and Communitv Issues Reuort included estimates of local stafYing compared
to national and state averages for Cities of comparable size. The City has historically had low
levels of major crime or fire loss despite betow average police and fire department staffing.
There are no uniform standards regarding appropriate or adequate number of officers per
number of residents. Each jurisdiction differs in the area serviced, population density,
demographics, land use composition, traffic and safety issues. It is generally assumed, however,
that increased size and additional population contribute to the need for additional police and fire
department staffing to maintain service levels. Because the 1990 General Plan projected build-
EIR - 30
Item 9.a. - Page 235
out at 19,500 population within essentially the same geographic area as proposed by the 2001
General Plan Update, there are few differences in the police and fire service impacts expected.
The 1990 General Plan FEIR suggested that cumulative growth would require additional police
and fire department staffing but that increased City revenues would help offset additional costs.
It concluded that these impacts would be "significant but mitigable". Many of the 12 Land Use
Study areas proposed by the 2001 General Plan Update for change from the 1990 plan involve
relatively small and internal changes that do not increase the geographic area of the City. The
substantial reduction of Sphere of Influence proposed by excluding the northern Residential
Suburban County Fringe (Study Area 5) is somewhat offset by potential eastern expansion of
Sphere of Influence to include FrederickIALC and Williams properties (Study Area 8). The latter
areas will be subject to Specific Plans and separate EIRs while the former have not been
proposed for annexation nor previously evaluated for public service impacts.
Another basic difference is that the 2001 General Plan Update proposes several existing
cornmerciaf areas as appropriate for Mixed Use including the Village Core, Traffic Way, East
Grand Avenue, Camino Mercado and El Camino Real. Conceptually, the benefit of increasing
potential residential uses within formerly exclusively commercial areas is that such Mixed-Use
areas are self-policing and thus safer due to residents providing neighborhood watch.
Conversely, Mixed- Use may increase the police and fire protection service requirements due to
complaints of incompatible activities and increased intensity or density of development.
Unfortunately, there is inadequate comparative information available to conclude either beneficial
or adverse impacts associated with Mixed-Use versus conventional commercial development.
Rather than imply any specific formula for future staffing, this Program EIR for 2001 General Plan
Update proposes project level environmental determinations to establish necessary mitigation of
police and fire service impacts.
Similarly, the increased need for water, sewer, garbage service, street maintenance, libraries,
schools, parks and other public services, infrastructure and facilities are generally considered
directly proportional to population and area served. Project level environmental evaluations
reveal, however, that public service impacts are not uniform but differ widely depending on
location, topography, use, character of development, project design and many other factors. The
2001 General Plan Update involves 12 land use study areas each requiring site specific
consideration. But because most changes are internal refinements, the public service impacts are
considered relatively minor and capable of project level mitigation,
Mitigation of cumulative development impacts, particularly in unincorporated Fringe Areas is a
major political problem that lacks clearly feasible fiscal solutions. Land use planning and growth
management to prevent substantial increase or intensification of such rural and suburban areas
with inadequate public services is the recommended mitigation, but this is beyond the control of
the City.
Ideally, the City of Arroyo Grande will continue to coordinate and cooperate with adjoining
jurisdictions including County, City of Pismo Beach, City of Grover Beach and Oceano CSD to
improve regional public safety and service levels as well as public service efficiency.
In general, additional impact fees may be needed to offset major geographic expansions such as
being considered by Specific Plans and separate EIRs for Arroyo Linda Crossroads and Williams
properties.
One public service issue only briefly addressed in the 1990 exist in^ Settina and Community
Issues Report is public schools, generally the responsibility of Lucia Mar Unified School District to
provide. The 1990 General Plan Final EIR had no discussion of school impacts resulting from
EIR - 31
Item 9.a. - Page 236
plan adoption, presumably because the plan reduced the projected population potential of the
City from more than 24,000 to a maximum build-out estimate of 19,500 population. The 2001
General Plan Update proposes approximately the same build out potential, but recognizes that
this implies approximately 20°/0 increase during the next 20 years, compared to existing
population.
Lucia Mar Unified School District response to Notice of Preparation noted four environmental
factors of primary concern to the District:
e Land Use and Planning;
e Transportation/Circulation
e Public Services; and,
e Recreation
Because most schools within the City are older and all are exceeding design capacity, residential
land use is of particular concern. While state law requires the City to accommodate its fair share
of low-income housing, the Schooi District notes that this type of housing generates more
students per unit than market rate single-family residences. Based on School District data,
multiple-family and mobile homes generate fewer students per household than single-family
developments, but this is offset by higher density.
Lucia Mar School District operates and maintains 10 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, 1 high
school, 1 continuation school and an adult education school, with total enrollment at 11,000 in
2000. Most schools were constructed in the 1950's and 60's and operate over their intended
design capacity. Schools in the Arroyo Grande urban area include:
Passage of a recent bond measure enabled the district to start construction on a new high school
in Nipomo, a new elementary school in Nipomo and a new elementary school in Arroyo Grande,
all of which will be completed after 2002-3. Most of the new facilities are outside of Arroyo
Grande but will enable shifts in attendance areas and provide substantial relief from overcapacity
in Arroyo Grande schools when opened. These new facilities do not, however, provide for
surplus space to accommodate continued growth. Thus, cumulative growth and development
anywhere in the District will impact area school facilities.
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes no increase in projected build-out population but
increases the proportion of multiple family and mixed-use housing compared to the 1990 General
Plan. Project-by-project evaluation and mitigation including impact on school facilities will be
required for any major Planned Development.
ACTUAL 2000 ENROLLMENT
697
586
633
642
3096
Inadequate parking, congested circulation and incomplete pedestrian and bike circulation are
among the reasons that Lucia Mar operates an extensive bus transportation system. However,
with the exception of the Paulding Middle School, the existing schools are generally located
southwest of Freeway 101 while new development in the City has been primarily occurring to the
north, requiring cross-town transportation. A new elementary school located near James way
and Rodeo Drive will relieve this lack of convenient neighborhood elementary schools within
DESIGN CAPACITY
593
538
516
600
1500
SCHOOL
tiarloe Elementary
No. Oceano Elementary
Ocean View Elementary
Paulding Middle
AGHS
EIR - 32
YEAR BUILT
1954
1962
1962
1962
1951
Item 9.a. - Page 237
walking or biking distance. Much can be done by the City to improve alternative modes of school
access including proposed priority pedestrian walks and multi-purpose trails, bike lanes and
improved transit. Better public transit service and improved parking management will also assist
correction of apparent circulation deficiencies affecting school facilities as well as the general
public.
Conversely, the City and Lucia Mar Unified School District should explore alternative location for
bus storage and maintenance facilities currently at Paulding Middle and Arroyo Grande High
Schools in residential neighborhoods. District bus routing and scheduling should be programmed
to minimize travel during peak hour traffic congestion and avoid problem areas such as East
Grand Avenue and East Branch Street where possible.
The District has expressed desire to continue cooperative programs for use of school buildings
and grounds for community events and recreation programs and requests City participation in
providing new gymnasium space, play fields, meeting rooms, swimming pools and additional
sport court and recreation centers. Funding at both City and District levels appears inadequate
to provide for such facilities unless the public approves additional bonds or other financing.
However, The Parks and Recreation Element includes several opportunities for priority
cooperation including possible community swimming pool and sport fields on High School
property near Valley Road and Fair Oaks and new multi-purpose building and improved
playgrounds at Paulding Middle School. The Circulation Element proposes pedestrian, bike,
transit and other route improvements to correct school related circulation problems, but
implementation programs are similarly lacking. It is apparent that the 2001 General Plan Update
involves relatively minor internal land use changes to the 1990 General Plan except for Land Use
study areas 5 and 8. Project related impacts are discussed below but the 2001 General Plan
focus is to diversify and concentrate land use for more efficient public service provision rather
than expand development into alternative Residential Rural and Suburban County Fringe Areas.
XI1 Utilitv and Service Svstems. The City is currently preparing an Update to its Sewer Facilities
Master Plan to coordinate with 2001 General Plan Update. Water resources, storage and
distribution system and storm drainage impacts were discussed in prior sections of this Program
EIR. Electric, gas, telephone and cable n/ systems are operated by private companies and are
beyond the scope of this report.
It is generally assumed that General Plan policies and City development standards contain
sufficient measures to mitigate utility infrastructure and service system impacts. The emphasis
on Mixed-Use and compact urban form proposed by the 2001 General Plan Update are
refinements to the 1990 General Plan that involve relatively minor internal and mitigable impacts.
Study Areas 5 and 8 are, however, contrasting examples of alternative external growth and
development patterns that are not minor regarding utilities and service system impacts.
Because of inherent public service and utility system concerns (among other reasons), the 2001
General Plan Update proposes exclusion of the potential northern Sphere of Influence urban
expansion into the Residential Suburban County Fringe Area. Conversely, the 2001 General Plan
Update suggests Specific Plans and separate EIRs to evaluate potential SO1 expansion to the
east, clearly dependent on major utility and service system improvements not yet resolved.
Other than these two study areas, the 12 land use study areas appear to be capable of project
related mitigation measures to less than significant impacts.
XIV Aesthetics. The 1990 Existinq Settins and Communitv Issues Report included Chapter I11
regarding Aesthetic and Cultural Resources. Scenic resources including most of the natural
valleys, canyons, hills, mesa and creeks around Arroyo Grande area are identified as essential to
the rural, small town character. Scenic corridors included: Highway 101; Highway 227; Grand
EIR - 33
Item 9.a. - Page 238
Avenue; Huasna Road; Corbett Canyon Road; Carpenter Canyon Road; Oak Park Boulevard and
Noyes Road; Printz Road; James Way; Camino Mercado and Rancho Parkway; Fair Oaks; and,
Branch Mill Road. Numerous scenic features mentioned within the City included the historic
Village, landmark trees and groves, Arroyo Grande, Tally Ho and Meadow Creeks, and the
wooded canyons and valleys located in the northwest part of the City. Agriculture lands to the
south and east are one of the major scenic resources adjoining and within the City contributing
to its attractive "rural quality of life". The major issue of hillside development and cumulative
reduction of "Aesthetic Resources", open spaces and scenic views were discussed in the 1990
General Plan Final EIR as mitigated by General Plan policies and community design guidelines.
While acknowledging the evolution of character from rural to more suburban, the EIR concluded
the aesthetic resources, views and most open spaces would be maintained by the General Plan
contributing to "No Significant Impact".
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes refinements to the 1990 General Plan that classify most
undeveloped or change areas as Planned Development, ConservationfOpen Space or require
Specific Plan consideration. These proposals, discussed for each of the 12 Land Use Study Areas
will reinforce project-by-project design and environment impacts mitigation including aesthetics.
The 2001 General Plan Urban Land Use Element policies, as well as Agricultural, Open Space and
Conservation Element, are intended to manage growth and urban development to conserve
natural resources and enhance aesthetic resources. In addition to prescribing community design
standards, the City requires all substantial development projects to obtain design review and
approval. Planned Developments and Specific Plans for major projects must also include
architectural, landscape and signage design consistent with community standards and City
approval prior to construction. The 2001 General Plan EIR considers aesthetic impacts
"significant but mitigable" rather than 'no significant impact". In other words, cumulative
degradation due to development is a potential significant impact unless carefully mitigated by
planning policy, growth management and design and development standards. Development as
well as natural open space and scenic resources can be aesthetically attractive. The 2001
General Plan Update proposes a balance recognizing the sensitivity of remaining undeveloped
areas. Project design review is an essential mitigation measure for all proposed developments in
the City for the 2001 General Plan Update impacts to be considered "less than significant".
XIV Cultural Resources. The 1990 Existins Setting and Communiv Issues Report Chapter I11
regarding Aesthetics also addressed "Historical and Cultural (Archaeological) Resources".
Property specific surveys are needed to identify archaeological sites, but often historical
resources are more apparent. Arroyo Grande has a rich heritage of both with numerous
Chumash Indian sites dating back more than 9000 years. During the last 260 years the initial
Mexican ranchos were further developed as Californians settled and subdivided for farms and the
historic 1862 township of Arroyo Grande. The City of Arroyo Grande, incorporated in 1911, was
separated by agricultural areas from the nearby towns of Pismo Beach, Grover City (now known
as Grover Beach), Halcyon and Oceano. The slow evolution of the area changed rapidly after
World War I1 when suburban subdivisions connected the once-separate communities into 'Five
Cities".
Fortunately, the historic character of the Village was recognized early as one of the essential
features of Arroyo Grande and special emphasis to its preservation and enhancement remain
central to the City's General Plan. Although no sites have been officially designated as federal or
state historical buildings, the Paulding Historical House, Loomis/Pacific Coast Railroad
Warehouse, Santa Manuela School, Old Catholic Cemetery, Old Stone House, Odd Fellows Hall,
Bridge Street Bridge and the Swinging Bridge are the eight most widely recognized local
"historically significant" points of interest. The Historical Society has a more comprehensive
inventory identifying 116 structures of local significance more than 75% within the Village and
EIR - 34
Item 9.a. - Page 239
nearby areas. Most of these historically significant structures are located on private property and
the issue of preservation or restoration versus removal or remodeling involves questions of
feasibility for adaptive reuse.
The 2001 General Plan and Village Core design guidelines will help preserve historic and cultural
resources according to the 1990 General Plan Final EIR, but probably not to the extent concluded
in that document, "No significant Impact". Expansion of the Village Core classification to include
adjoining areas along Bridge Street, Traffic Way and Station Way will further enhance Village
design character and promote preservation of existing older buildings for compatible Mixed Uses.
Additional design standards will be proposed for Village Core expansion areas such as Traffic Way
and East Grand Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor gateways to the south and west. Site specific,
project specific surveys and mitigation proposals will be required however, particularly for
projects involving development within the Village Core area. Removal of historic structures
should be avoided where feasible and mitigated if not to assure less than significant cumuiative
impact. In some instances structural condition, public safety or other considerations may warrant
removal, subject to project level mitigation and/or statement of overriding considerations.
XV Recreation. The 2001 General Plan Update integrates the 1990 General Plan Park and
Recreation Element (1988) policies and implementation programs. The 1990 Existing Settins and
Comrnunitv Issues Report included Recreation and Open Space as Aesthetic and Cultural
Resources. The 57 acres identified as park and recreation facilities are inventoried in the 2001
Park and Recreation Element Update essentially unchanged from 1990. Needs assessments are
also projected to be the same as previously outlined based on General Plan build-out
approaching 20,000 City residents and a standard of 4.0 acres of parkland per 1000 population.
Neither the 1990 General Plan nor the 2001 General Plan Update attempt to locate the additional
20 acres of park and recreation facilities implied by these projected standards. The lack of
community sport facilities, despite development of Soto Sports complex is also apparent and
might be addressed in cooperation with Lucia Mar Unified School District on Arroyo Grande High
School and/or Paulding Middle School properties. The City and School District might consider
relocation of corporation and transportation maintenance facilities to enable these and/or Soto
Sports Complex facility expansion. Finally, the City has recently invited discussion with Grover
Beach, Oceano CSD and Pismo Beach to address park, recreation and sport facility capital
improvement, operations and maintenance as regional issues.
The eventual solutions to existing deficiencies can be separated from impacts caused by
additional development, the latter contributing either parkland or in-lieu fees. Other project level
mitigation measures such as private recreation and open space areas can be included with new
Planned Developments. Correcting existing local and regional deficiencies, however, is a more
difficult problem requiring cooperative efforts of the City, Lucia Mar Unified School District and
adjoining agencies including the County. With the exception of Study Area 8, Arroyo Linda
Crossroads and Williams properties and Study Area 10 near Farroll Road, the other Land Use
Study areas are not logical candidates for major additional park and recreation facilities. These
are either environmentally sensitive residual sites or already partially developed potential Mixed-
Use areas. Some potential for certain types of indoor recreation facilities and passive outdoor
areas may be satisfied adjoining the South County Regional Center and Women's Club if not
otherwise essential to civic and other community facilities. However, this location might duplicate
the nearby Rancho Grande neighborhood park and its size and terrain are not suited to needed
outdoor sports facilities. The City should seek to identify and acquire the site(s) for park and
recreation facility development as soon as possible.
This Program EIR considers the Park and Recreation Element policies and park in-lieu fee
program as mitigation to less than significant related to 2001 General plan Update adoption.
EIR - 35 Item 9.a. - Page 240
Item 9.a. - Page 241
D. Environmental Sewing and Imoacts bv Subarea
The subareas are shown on Land Use Study Area Map EIR-4.
1 ,) Oak Park Acres at James Way
Ex/st/hg Conditions - Phr P/ans and Regu/at/ons
This area is part of Oak Park Acres PD shown as Planned Development/Specific Plan on the 1990
General Plan and zoned PD1.1. The original 1976 PD designated this 5.7-acre subarea for
Neighborhood Commercial, but subsequently it was developed with a large church and related
school. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes that the property be shown as CF Community
Facility rather than Community Commercial as shown on the 2000 draft map. Existing churches
and lodges will be distinguished by specific symbols on the LUE Update maps and proposed as
conditionally permitted uses in all zones, including PF or CF.
Impacts of the Proposed Genera/ P/an
Because the site is developed with church, school and related off-street parking and further
development would be controlled by conditional use permit in any alternative, the proposed
Community Facility classification implies no change or significant development impacts. The
existing development does not include resident population or housing. The institutional
structures were constructed to current seismic design and building safety requirements and do
not pose a significant public safety concern. No increase in water demand is implied by the CF
classification. Controlled drainage from development areas particularly paved parking areas,
contributes to cumulative urban degradation of surface water quality. If additional church and
school construction occur, special mitigation measures to prevent erosion and siltation into
Meadow Creek should be required: On-site ponding and siltation basin maintenance are two
recommended methods for surface water quality mitigation. Potential church and school
expansions, if proposed, would be reviewed by APCD, but would not be expected to exceed the
criteria for project significance for air quality (10 Ibs/day of emissions from related vehicle trips).
Unless church and school expansion proposals exceeded 20 peak hour additional trips, the traffic
impads of such development would also be considered less than significant. (The nearest
intersection, Oak Park and James Way operates at better than LOS 'C' with signalization.)
Biological resources adjoining the church and school have already been altered by development.
If additional development were proposed, the most significant biological impact would be indirect
cumulative contribution to erosion and siltation of Meadow Creek watershed, discussed above.
Energy and Mineral resources and hazards are not apparent impact issues regarding this study
area. The church and school are not subject to substantial traffic noise increases that affect
areas adjacent to Freeway 101 and other major arterials. These uses are considered a sensitive
receptor that could be impacted by commercial development recently approved in the City of
Pismo Beach, but noise impacts could be mitigated by special construction to achieve acceptable
interior noise levels if the problem is evident with additional development. The public services
and utilities systems serving the area are adequate for existing development despite marginal fire
response time. Special fire suppression and alarm systems should be required for institutional
expansion if proposed. No aesthetic, cultural resource or recreation impacts are apparent with
existing or potential additional church or school expansion on this developed property, other than
those normally addressed by design review and impact fees. Conclusion: Less than significant,
including additional church and school expansion proposed with traffic, drainage, fire, safety and
possible noise mitigation.
EIR - 37
Item 9.a. - Page 242
a. Create a PD classification similar to the 1990 plan;
b. Create a CC classification similar to 2000 draft;
c. Utilize the CF classification reflecting existing institutional uses;
d. Consider Mixed-Use classification enabling commercial, residential and institutional
development in addition to that existing; and,
e. Consider Office or Residential classification to encourage these alternative uses.
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes alternative 'c', to classify the property CF,
Community Facility.
The CF designation is being created to replace the Public Facility (PF) for facilities such as
churches, lodges, and cemeteries. Although some additional community facilities may be
developed as conditionally permitted uses in other land use classifications and zones, without
requiring General Plan amendment, the City wants to identify where these institutions exist.
The non-residential, non-commercial characteristics of institutional land uses are very different
than the neighborhoods and districts where they often locate. Traffic generation, parking,
potential conversion, hours of operation, and land use compatibility are frequent problems,
particularly in low-density residential or agricultural settings. Some community facilities such as
cemeteries interrupt prevalent land use patterns or preclude circulation improvements. Others
such as lodges and churches may fit well as a transitional use or service facility for meeting and
recreational use by neighboring residential or commercial uses.
Regarding alternatives, the General Plan Update attempts to avoid the PD classification used in
the 1990 plan since that classification did not identify the actual uses allowed by Planned
Development, revealed only by research of related zoning and Development Code regulations.
The original PD provision for neighborhood shopping at this intersection became obsolete when a
large community and convenience shopping center was developed at the southwest corner of
James Way and Oak Park Boulevard in the City of Pismo Beach, and the subject property was
developed with a large church and related school. The Mixed-Use, Office or Residential
classifications would not reflect actual use: Mixed-Use, including ofice and fitness center is
being developed on the southeast corner of James Way and Oak Park Boulevard. A wide variety
of residential uses at diverse densities compose other parts of Oak Park Acres PD nearby on
James Way and Oak Park Boulevard,
No additional irreversible changes or growth-inducing impacts are apparent from the proposed
reclassification of the property from PD to CF, and potential rezoning to CF.
EIR - 38
Item 9.a. - Page 243
2 .) Rancho Grade - Doves Road
Ex/thg Condihons, Prior P/ans and Regu/al/bns
This remaining undeveloped 53-acre property is part of the Rancho Grande PD shown as Planned
Development/Specific Plan on the 1990 General Plan. It is zoned PD 1.2 and shown on the
Rancho Grande Conceptual Master Plan as two parcels that are part of "unplanned PD areas".
The EIR for the PD indicated 5 units on each parcel but the PD allows 1 unit per parcel unless
rezoned. The 2000 draft map indicated Open Space and Low Density Single Family for the
undeveloped area, but other single-family densities and open space configurations may be
appropriate, Adjoining lots to the south in the City are generally 1-acre while County areas to the
west and north are Residential Suburban also allowing 1-acre lots.
Impads of l'the Proposed Genera/ P/an
These 53-acres contain two parcels of relatively steep slopes, mostly vegetated, traversed by
several drainage ways and relatively undisturbed wetland. The sites have not been surveyed or
evaluated but would be subject to a project EIR with any proposed Planned Development. The
range of land use and planning considered reasonable for this property range from 1 to 53
dwelling units, all subject to Planned Development approval. Environmental impads would be
expected to be proportional to development intensity and amount of property disturbed for
construction. Population and housing would range from a minimum of 6 residents if only one
house were allowed on each of the two existing parcels to approximately 159 if 53 single-family
dwellings were developed on the 53 acres. The proposed plan includes a maximum of 35
dwellings which would accommodate approximately 105 residents.
The relatively steep slopes composing the eastern half of the property are considered high
landslide and slope stability risk while the relatively level areas traversed by drainage and
wetlands are potential liquefaction and settlement risk areas. In either event, Planned
Development would require site-specific geotechnical and soils evaluations and engineering to
mitigate geophysical concerns prior to grading and construction. Water resources for increase of
potential development is a cumulative impact issue affecting this property, currently limited to
two dwellings. If development were proposed on the lower flatter portions of the property, flood
control and drainage would require site engineering to mitigate these potential impacts. One
potentially significant impact associated with grading and drainage would be the degradation of
surface water quality due to siltation from disturbed hillsides draining into downstream Meadow
Creek and extremely sensitive Pismo Lagoon. Prior developments have not adequately mitigated
erosion and siltation impacts which will require better design and construction to prevent
permanent degradation of these important resources: On-site ponding and siltation basin
maintenance are two recommended methods for surface water quality mitigation. The potential
for a project with up to 35 dwellings, would generate approximately 10 Ibs per day of air quality
emissions but less than 25 Ibs per day, the "screening-level" criteria. Some project mitigation
measures to reduce vehicle trips and travel distance would be appropriate, but low-density
residential development is inherently automobile oriented, a pattern already established by
adjoining existing urban and Residential Suburban uses. A 35 home project if proposed would
add approximately 350 trips to the local and regional street system and require traffic study with
20 or more peak hour trips expected. Traffic mitigation measures would be determined by
project EIR.
Biological resources of the undeveloped property have not been surveyed but are expected to
include Coastal Oak woodland and chaparral on the hillside and Riparian woodland and wetlands
on the Noyes Road valley floor. Sensitive plants such as Pismo Clarkia, and Well's Manzanita may
be found on this diverse residual area at the northwest edge of the City. Energy and Mineral
EIR - 39
Item 9.a. - Page 244
Resources are not apparent concerns regarding this property. As noted above, slope stability and
landslide hazards are hillside development risks while flooding, liquefaction and settlement are
hazards affecting the relatively level portions of the site. Fire hazard due to Oak Woodland and
chaparral interface with existing and potential residential development is an additional hazard,
particularly due to marginal fire response time from the City's fire station, approximately six
minutes away. Noise is not a potential impact issue on this property at the northwest edge of
the City except during short-term construction activity. Public services such as fire and police are
least efficient at the edge of the City and currently overcapacity school facilities will require
student transportation to all grade levels since none exist in this part of the City. The cost-
benefit of residential development, particularly low density development at the edge of the City,
would be expected to be adverse, including water, sewer, storm drainage and garbage service as
well as schools.
Although Planned Development for low density residential would be subject to design review and
special site planning, and aesthetically attractive cluster development screened from adjoining
areas would be expected, the conversion of natural open space to urban use would be a
degradation of existing natural scenic character. The alternate potential for conventional
subdivision would be much more detrimental aesthetically, however, as roads, building sites and
yards associated with large lots if evenly spread over the site would cause removal of most
natural vegetation and become visually prominent from Noyes Road as well as adjoining existing
residential areas.
Cultural resources of this undeveloped property have not been surveyed and impacts on possible
archeological areas are thus unknown. Planned Development would require site evaluation to
determine possible impacts and appropriate mitigation measures, including avoidance by cluster
design. The recreation impacts of potential Planned Development would be off-set by prior
dedication of a public park site, payment of park fees, provision of proposed recreational trails
traversing the property and possible on-site private recreation commons. The PD would extend
equestrian and multi-purpose trails to the edge of the City to eventually connect with County
trails in Residential Suburban Fringe Area or along County road rights-of-way. Park and
recreation facilities will be provided by the City at Rancho Grande Park, already programmed for
improvement. Conclusion: Any Planned Development would require project EIR.
a. Create a PD classification similar to the 1990 plan;
b. Classify as Conservation/Open Space and enable one house on each existing parcel or
allow consideration of 1 du/5 ac, or 10 ac., implying 5 to 10 houses with PD approval;
c. Classify as SFR-VLD-PD to enable consideration of a very low-density, single-family
residential planned development not to exceed 1 du12.5 acres, enabling up to 21 units;
d. Classify as SFR-LD-PD to enable consideration of a low density single family residential
planned development not to exceed 1 du11.5 acres enabling up to 35 units, or 1 du/ac.
enabling up to 53 units; and,
e. Classify as SFR-LM-PD and C/OS to enable consideration of a LM Low Medium-density
single-family residential planned development on the most developable portions of the
site, requiring Conservation Open Space on the bulk of the slopes, drainage and
vegetated areas. This might enable 53 units or more, depending on the proportion of
property classified C/OS versus SFR.
EIR- 40 Item 9.a. - Page 245
The 2001 General PIan Update proposes alternative 'd' SFR-LD-PD Single Family Residential-
Low Density (Hillside) Planned Development and Conservation/Open Space combining
designations to retain natural slopes, drainage and vegetation over the majority of both
parcels. Planned Development would allow maximum of 1 du per 1.5 acres and encourage
cluster residential and open space up to 35 units.
Although the General Plan Update classification as SFR-LD-PD and C/OS combining designation
implies a potential for up to 35 dwelling unit residential planned development, that would require
a PD zoning amendment and prerequisite project EIR to implement. (Current PD1.2 allows one
dwelling per parcel). This is the basic mitigation measure for General Plan Update. Until site
specific and project specific analysis is provided by the required EIR, the maximum development
would be limited to 1 dwelling per parcel.
Regarding alternatives, the Update attempts to avoid use of the PD General PIan classification as
it does not identify intended use without research into zoning and Development Code provisions.
The C/O$-PD, Conservation/Open Space Planned Development classification alone would be an
environmentally superior alternative, allowing one dwelling per parcel or 1 du per 10 acres
allowing 5 dwellings or 1 du per 5 acres allowing 10 units maximum, subject to PD zoning
amendment. Fewer units imply less disruption to the natural environment and more opportunity
for avoiding sensitive resources with cluster residential Planned Development. The classification
as SFR-VLD-PD, while reducing potential maximum Planned Development to 1 du12.5 acres or
approximately 21 dwellings, also implies possible conventional subdivision into 2.5 acre
"equestrian estate lots". If Planned Development does not require cluster residential and
substantial portions of the property to remain as natural hillside and wetland, then the lower
density could actually increase potential impacts due to greater site area disturbance. Lower
density may also be less feasible due to required urban improvements for streets, access
driveways, trails, underground utilities, drainage and siltation basin, recreational commons and
other residential amenities. The additional alternatives of SFR-LD-PD at 1 dulacre or SFR-LM-PD
and Conservation/Open Space on the sloping and wetland areas of the property, enabling 53
dwelling units or more would require General Plan amendment as well as PD rezoning to exceed
the 35 dwelling unit maximum prescribed by the Update. This higher density residential Planned
Development may be evaluated as an alternative in the project EIR, but the City anticipates that
the cluster concentration and design involving more than 35 dwellings would be inconsistent with
"rural character" objectives of the General Plan. The higher intensity development also appears
to exceed the intent of the original Rancho Grande master plan and development agreement
which provided for a total of 527 dwelling units,
In any event, the on-site environmental resources, irreversible changes and growth-inducing
impacts of more than two dwellings must be evaluated by project specific EIR prior to
implementation of the SFR-LD-PD and C/OS development potential.
3.) Rancho Grande - La Canada
Ex/sf/iig Condif-ions, Pr/br P/ms and Regu/a&ions
This un-subdivided 26.6-acre, vegetated canyon and ridge adjoining single family subdivisions to
the northwest and southeast is part of the Rancho Grande Planned Development on the 1990
General Plan, zoned PD 1.2. The Rancho Grande Conceptual Master Plan implied a 40-unit
cluster residential subdivision for a central portion of this parcel with the perimeter shown as
open space. The 2000 Land Use Policy draft map showed this parcel as Open Space/Restricted,
normally applied to public owned property or involving open space easement or similar land use
restriction. There is a proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 1998 (VTTM) application also
EIR - 41
Item 9.a. - Page 246
proposing a 40-dwelling unit cluster Planned Development which would be affected by this
General Plan Update.
The VrrM 1998 proposes approximately 16.5 acres (62%) of the total site as private open space.
Access and secondary emergency access would loop off La Canada Drive, requiring two bridges
or culverts over the creek traversing the west edge of the property, while the other creek to the
southeast would remain in the open space area. The project EIR for VrrM 1998 has not yet
been completed for public review and comment and it appears that some lots involve grading
that would encroach on both creek areas and require removal of Pismo Clarkia, Oak Woodland
and Riparian vegetation to enable residential construction. At least seven of the proposed lots
lack standard frontage on the proposed public street, instead accessed by "flag lot" shared
private driveways. Lot sizes ranging from 5,500 to 30,000 square feet would compose the 40
homesites which may be enabled by Planned Development variation of conventional single-family
detached subdivision standards.
Impacts of Proposed Genera/Ph
The 26.6-acre property is an undeveloped parcel traversed by two branches of Meadow Creek
separated by a ridge known to contain significant biological resources, including sensitive plant
species. The tentative tract map for a 40-unit cluster residential subdivision, VrrM 1998,
provided site survey but a project EIR has not been completed. The proposed land use appears
to be more intensive than adjoining low-density residential subdivisions despite the site
sensitivity, Access and building areas are not resolved, and mitigation measures and alternatives
not yet considered.
The relatively flat ridge occupies the central portion of the site, separated from adjoining roads
and residential subdivisions to the northwest and southeast by steep slopes, heavy Riparian
vegetation and creek canyons. Thus, access and circulation are not easily connected to existing
streets.
If development is confined to the relatively level ridge area, the potential for siope stability and
landslide hazards as well as erosion and siltation would be reduced, but on-site mitigation such
as siltation basins appears infeasible without reduction of residential development proposed.
Meadow Creek drains to very sensitive Pismo Lagoon habitat, and prior developments have not
adequately mitigated erosion and siltation impacts to surface water quality of Meadow Creek.
Water supply to cumulative residential development is also a potential impact issue since General
Plan buildout approaches or exceeds current water entitlements if per capita consumption
exceeds 160 gpd. The low density residential development, whether 1 or 40 units is inherently
automobile oriented, but this pattern is established by adjoining development, not feasible
altered by this residual property. A 40 home project, if approved, would contribute 400 trips to
the local streets and require traffic study to determine possible mitigation measures for James
Way and La Canada Drive or other collector streets. Bike, pedestrian and equestrian trials are
proposed to traverse the property and partially mitigate automobile trip impacts, but these are
not clearly proposed or provided by VrrM 1998 at this time. The General Plan proposal as
Conservation/Open Space not to exceed 5 dwellings implies 50 trips, less than significant.
Biological resources evident on-site would be adversely affected by previously proposed Planned
Development of 40 dwellings including lots encroaching on Pismo Clarkia and requiring reduction
of Oak and Riparian Woodlands. Until an environmental determination is completed, for Planned
Development of 5 or fewer dwellings the appropriate development density and configuration as
well as possible mitigation measures for development impacts are unresolved. Cluster Planned
Development has better potential to avoid or reduce environmental impacts than conventional
residential subdivision but the density and distribution of development are unresolved.
EIR - 42 Item 9.a. - Page 247
Energy and mineral resources are not at issue. Exposure to hazards such as landslide, flooding
and fire are dependent on the development design relative to site constraints. Access limitations
and proximity of proposed homes to heavy vegetation on steep slopes implies substantial
wildland fire hazard exposure. Noise exposure for Planned Development residential is not at
issue on this residual site nor is provision of public services and utilities already established to the
northwest and southeast. Aesthetics of potential Planned Development would be generally better
than conventional residential subdivision but either will degrade existing natural environment. No
archeological or cultural resources are known on this site, but would also be subject to project
EIR if more than 5 dwellings Planned Development is proposed. The property is near the Rancho
Grande Park and Planned Development contributed land rather than in-lieu fees for park
improvements. Additionally, proposed recreational trails traverse the property for bike,
pedestrian and equestrian circulation. Conclusion: Any Planned Development exceeding 5
dwellings would require a project EIR. The General Plan Update can minimize potential impacts
by classification of the property as Conservation Open Space allowing 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres
which might enable up to 5 units subject to PD approval. A project EIR would be required and
General Plan Amendment for PD approval.
A/ternat/i/es, Eva/uat/bns and Exp/anaf/bns
Alternatives considered reasonable for this property range from 1 to 40 units, all subject to
Planned Development approval. Population and housing would range from 3 to 120 residents
assuming normal household population for single-family dwellings, depending on which
alternative is approved and included:
a. Create a PD classification similar to the 1990 plan allowing one house per existing parcel
unless a PD amendment is approved;
b. Classify as ConservationJOpen Space-PD and allow 1 du per parcel, 1 dull0 ac. or 1 duf5
ac. enabling 1 to 5 units subject to planned development approval;
c. Classify as SFR-VLD-PD at 1 duJ2.5 ac. for approximately 10 units subject to planned
development approval;
d. Classify as SFR-LD-PD at 1 duJ1.5 ac. or 1 du/ac. enabling consideration of a planned
development of 17 or 26 units, depending on PD and subdivision approval; and,
e. Classify as SFR-MLD-PD and CJOS enabling consideration of a medium low density single
family residential planned development on a portion of the ridge preserving the canyons
and vegetated areas as ConservationJOpen Space. This might enable up to 33 units at
2.5 dulac. if half of the parcel were determined developable and the other half preserved
as open space.
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes alternative 'b', to classify the property as CJOS-PD,
ConservationJOpen Space, Planned Development allowing 1 du per 5 acres which would
enable up to 5 units subject to PD approval.
Regarding other alternatives, the General Plan Update attempts to avoid the PD classification
used in the 1990 plan since that classification did not identify the actual uses allowed by Planned
Development, revealed only by research of relate zoning and Development Code regulations.
The alternative of CJOS-PD allowing 1 du per parcel or 1 du per 10 acres subject to Planned
Development approval would be considered environmentally superior alternatives considering
that only one or two homes rather than 5 dwellings would be enabled. However, the feasibility
EIR - 43 Item 9.a. - Page 248
of providing access and other required improvements for only 2 dwellings is in question, the
extent of other environmental constraints is not resolved. A project EIR would be required for
General Plan Amendment and PD, Planned Development for any alternative exceeding 5 dwelling
units.
By restricting Planned Development to 5 units, the City intends to avoid irreversible changes on
the sensitive environmental resources evident on the bulk of this property which would be further
protected by the Conservation/Open Space classification. Because the property is otherwise
surrounded by existing residential subdivisions and no urban service extensions are required for
this limited additional residential development, the project is not considered growth inducing.
4 .j Rova/ Oaks Estates
L-x/sf/hg Conditionons, P& Phs and Requhtions
This vegetated hillside and creek canyon parallel to and west of Rodeo Drive was designated
"Estate" residential as part of the Royal Oaks Estates Planned Development on the adopted
General Plan. The area was subdivided into 4 large parcels ranging from 5 to 15 acres in size,
each allowing 1 house unless converted to institutional uses such as church as occurred at the
north and south end, adjoining Rodeo Drive. The church use on the north end was constructed
on 10 acres rather than the original 13-acre lot, enlarging the undeveloped two lots to the south
by 3 acres creating a 29-acre single ownership parcel with a "flag lot" frontage on Rodeo Drive to
the south. The 7.5-acre southern parcel, approved for church use but not developed has
subsequently been sold to a private rather than institutional owner. Existing PD zoning and
Development Code allow only one house per parcel unless PD amendment approved by the City
enables institutional use: Assuming that 3 undeveloped parcels exist, the current zoning would
allow 3 dwellings, exclusive of the area containing the Coastal Oak Woodland grove on the steep
hillside protected by a tree preservation easement. The 2000 draft map indicated both church
parcels and the two estate lots as 'Open Space", but only the oak grove on the steep hillside to
the east is protected by tree preservation easement.
Impacts of the Proposed Genera/ P!
The proposed General Plan Update provides for Community Facility classification on the existing
church property, while the 3 residential 'estate" lots would be designated SFR-LD-PD, Single
Family Residential, Low Density (Hillside), Planned Development. The 13-acre vegetated hillside
and creek area, including the Landmark Royal Oak tree protection easement would be classified
as Conservation/Open Space. SFR-LD-PD would enable Planned Development at a maximum of 1
du/1.5 acres, or 20 dwellings maximum on both existing parcels.
The slopes of the western portion of the undeveloped area would require grading for access and
development which would depend on density and design. Potential for increased landslide and
slope stability exposure and erosion are inherent in hillside development, whether residential or
institutional. Erosion and siltation are potential hillside development impact issues, which would
impact Arroyo Grande Creek rather than Meadow Creek drainage and require on-site or off-site
mitigation. A drainage detention and siltation settlement pond may be feasible and appropriate
on-site. Water supply as well as water quality due to increased development potential is a
cumulative impad issue, as noted above. Low-density residential development anticipated for the
site is inherently automobile oriented but the pattern was established by adjoining subdivisions,
not feasibly altered by this residual property. A 20 dwelling Planned Development project, if
approved, would contribute 200 trips to Rodeo Drive and possibly require traffic study to
determine off-site mitigation measures.
EIR - 44 Item 9.a. - Page 249
Alternative institutional uses would be expected to generate more significant traffic, depending
on type of use and would require specific evaluation for air quality and circulation impacts. One
possible benefit from additional Planned Development might be traffic reduction on the
residential segment of Rodeo Drive if a parallel relief collector or local street were extended
through this property. The biological resources of the undeveloped 37 acres have not been
surveyed nor evaluated, but approximately 13 acres of Oak Woodland are protected by the tree
protection easement for the "Landmark" grove east of the creek, while the remainder is not well
vegetated.
Energy and mineral resources are not impad issues for potential planned development, but
exposure to landslide and slope stability would be inherent in hillside development. Noise from
this potential Planned Development is a concern to adjoining residents, but has not been
evaluated for other low density residential or possible institutional uses. Public services and
utilities are capable of service to the undeveloped properties, already surrounded by more
intensive residential and institutional uses. Aesthetics of additional low-density residential
development or alternative institutional uses are not a significant impact issue, assuming tree
preservation and considering the isolated visual exposure for most of the property. Archeological
resources have not been identified on-site but would be considered by project EIR for Planned
Development. The property is near Rancho Grande Park and Planned Development would be
required to contribute impact fees for park improvement. Additionally, proposed recreational trail
traverses the property adjoining the creek, connecting the West Branch Regional Community
Facilities to the park and church to the north.
A/lernafives, Eva/uafions and Exp/anat/on.s
The range of land use and planning considered reasonable for these parcels range from 3 to 20
dwelling units subject to PD approval and General PIan Update. Population and housing would
range from 9 to approximately 60 residents depending on number of homes allowed.
a. Create a PD classification similar to the 1990 and allow one house per existing parcel
unless a PD amendment is approved;
b. Classify as C/OS-PD and allow 1 house per'parcel or 1 du/5 ac enabling 3 or more units
depending on whether the tree preservation agreement area is included in the PD;
c. Classify as C/OS and SFR-VLD-PD or 1 du12.5 ac. enabling 2 or 3 units per parcel,
exclusive of the oak grove for a total of 6 to 8 homes subject to PD approval; and,
d. Classify as SFR-LD-PD and C/OS at 1 du11.5 ac, or 1 du/ac. enabling consideration of
subdivision to approximately 20 homesites on the three parcels exclusive of the oak
grove.
The 2001 General PIan Update proposes alternative 'd', CF Community Facility classification
on the church lot while the 3 residential lots would be designated Single Family Residential,
Low Density, Planned Development, limited to a maximum of 20 dwellings total. The
vegetated hillside and creek area subject to tree preservation easement Owould be shown as
Conservation/Open Space. A project EIR would be required.
Regarding other alternatives, the General Plan Update attempts to avoid the PD classification
used in the 1990 plan because that classification did not identify the actual uses allowed by
Planned Development, revealed only by research of related zoning and Development Code
regulations.
EIR - 45 Item 9.a. - Page 250
The C/OS classification or the SFR-VLD-PD classification enabling from 3 to 8 dwellings would be
environmentally superior alternatives due to reduced residential potential. (Fewer dwellings
generally create less impact both on-site and cumulative). The feasibility of these lower density
alternatives is, however, questionable due to required access and infrastructure improvements
such as street, underground utilities, water, sewer, drainage and proposed recreational trail.
Higher density Planned Development alternatives, such as 1 du/ac or 2.5 du/ac are considered
incompatible with adjoining Rancho Grande low density single family subdivisions to the west
that overview the undeveloped subject properties.
The prerequisite for project EIR is considered the basic mitigation measure to determine potential
impacts and appropriate design and density of proposed PD consistent with the General Plan
Update.
5. ) Pflhfi, Nqves and Oak Park Roads - Nodhern Sphere of Influence
Ex/s&/i;tg Condifions, P, Phs and Reguhfibns
North of the City limits, the adopted LAFCO plans include a large portion of the San Luis Bay-
Inland Land Use Element's Residential Suburban "Arroyo Grande Fringe Area" as within the City's
Sphere of Influence, implying potential annexation. Most of the properties along Printz, Noyes
and Oak Park Roads and numerous local streets and private driveways branching from these
three County roads have been fragmented into parcels ranging from 1 to 5 acres, making future
conversion to urban residential improbable. Water, sewer, roads, drainage systems, fire and
police services associated with annexation and urban use would be very expensive and require
areawide improvements unlikely with hundreds of partially developed Residential Suburban
fragmented parcels.
The City's 1990 General Plan did not include this area as part of the Urban Land Use Element, but
it is nonetheless within both the City's and South County Sanitation District's Sphere of Influence
(SOI) approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Composed of more than
760 acres (1.2 square miles) the western two thirds of this large area involves approximately 500
acres of Canyons No. 1 and No. 2, including Oak Park Road and Noyes Road respectively, within
the Meadow Creek watershed. The eastern third of the area, containing approximately 200 acres
of Poorman Canyon and 60 acres of Carpenter Canyon traversed by Printz Road and Carpenter
Canyon RoadIHighway 227 respectively, are part of the Tally Ho/Arroyo Grande Creek watershed.
These three separate drainage areas are identified by examination of Map EIR-1, which is an
excerpt of the USGS Arroyo Grande quadrangle map used to depict the Planning Area known as
the Area of Environmental Concern.
This Sphere of Influence area implies a potential "Northern Expansion Area" of the City into only
a small portion of the large County Residential Suburban and Residential Rural Arroyo Grande
Fringe Area, involving approximately 2,865 acres, and 3,585 acres, respectively. As noted above,
however, the feasibility of this large Northern Expansion is very doubtful, due to fragmentation.
This 1.2 square mile Northern Expansion Area is both deceptive and detrimental in that it falsely
implies potential for more than a 20% geographic addition to the City's current 5.5 square mile
area for future urban growth and development.
EIR - 46 Item 9.a. - Page 251
Impacts of the Proposed Genera/ P/an
The General Plan Update proposes to exclude this area from the City's SO1 and URL except
adjoining Highway 227 where SFR-LD-PD would be considered subject to annexation.
Additionally, the South County Sanitation District's SO1 would be requested for amendment to
exclude this area and the County would be requested to amend the San Luis Bay Inland LUE to
include a minimum Planning Area Standard for Residential Suburban to 1 duj2.5 ac., rather than
1 to 3 acre parcels.
The land use and planning of this portion of the Arroyo Grande Fringe area is essentially
committed to County Residential Suburban standards ranging from 1 to 3-acre lots on private
wells and septic systems. The established pattern of 1 to 3-acre lots, each a Residential
Suburban homesite, and the lack of urban infrastructure in the entire area makes this Sphere of
Influence for potential urban expansion almost totally unrealistic. Population and housing
impacts of this Fringe Area development are not considered part of this General Plan Update, but
would be substantial and adverse if the Urban Land Use Element extended to the 760 acres of
very low density Residential Suburban north of the City. More intensive urban development would
increase exposure to natural hazards such as landslide and slope stability risks on steeper slopes
and flooding and erosion on lesser slopes lacking adequate drainage improvements. Water
resources available to the City are already at a maximum potential buildout excluding this area,
which may contribute to groundwater overdraft of the aquifer used by the City and downstream
agricultural uses. More intensive Residential Suburban development would only increase this
water deficiency and further contribute to potential groundwater and surface water
contamination due to excessive septic systems and inadequate drainage and erosion control.
This type of very low-density residential development is totally automobile dependent and
contributes to regional air quality problems caused by vehicle emissions. More appropriate
mixed-use urban expansion opportunities or additional mixed-use developments within the
current urban area are preferable alternatives to Residential Suburban sprawl based on air
quality, circulation and public service and facility impacts. Printz Road functions as a collector
connection between Highway 227 and Oak Park Road regardless of whether inside or outside the
City, and is clearly deficient for existing and potential circulation: The County will be requested
to address this and other road improvement needs, apparent in the Arroyo Grande Fringe Area.
The biological resources of this area have not been surveyed nor evaluated but would be
impacted by substantial intensification of potential County Residential Suburban development.
The cumulative impacts on water, drainage, plants and wildlife habitat are qualitatively increased
proportional to allowed development, and unless additional Planning Area Standards are added to
the Arroyo Grande Fringe Area for Residential Suburban, the potential could be more than double
or triple the existing. This allowance for further 1 du per acre parcelization is a potential
significant environmental impact that should be avoided, but is outside the jurisdiction of the
City. As noted previously, the County Residential Suburban land use extends much further north
than the City's Sphere of Influence into Canyons No. 1 and 2, Carpenter and Corbett Canyons.
Energy and Mineral Resources are not at issue in this area. The apparent hazards of slope
stability and fire safety are additional reasons that increased development on I and 2 acre lots
should not be continued. The area is more than 15 minutes fire response time from County CDF
stations in Nipomo and San Luis Obispo and slopes, limited access, and very flammable
vegetation combine to make it a hazardous wildland fire area also interfacing with urban areas.
Noise is not an impact issue in the area.
As previously noted, the provision of public services such as schools, and utilities such as water,
sewer or drainage are inefficient and expensive for such low density partially developed areas.
The only portion of this Sphere of Influence area that might be considered feasible for urban
expansion is the frontage of Highway 227 at the eastern end of the SOI. If retained in the SOI,
this 60-acre portion of the area would be considered for Single Family Residential Low-Density
EIR - 47 Item 9.a. - Page 252
Planned Development subject to annexation and extension of urban services. This Planned
Development potential and annexation would require project EIR to determine possible impacts
and mitigation measures, dependent on development proposed. Aesthetics, Cultural Resources,
Recreation and other urban service and infrastructure concerns would be addressed in the
project EIR. Cumulative and growth-inducing impacts would also be addressed in a project EIR
prior to consideration for annexation to the City.
The 2000 draft land use map proposed this Sphere of Influence as within the Urban Reserve
Limit but classified Estate or very low density Single Family Residential.
A/Iernativees, Eva/uaf/bn and Exp/anations
a. If not annexed, the County area could remain RS, allowing 1 ac. lots, unless slopes
exceed 16 or 30% requiring 2 or 3 acre lots;
b. If the County concurs with service constraints and environmental concerns noted by the
City, the minimum lot size could be increased to 1 du/2.5 ac. similar to RS areas
southeast of Arroyo Grande, by County LUE amendment of Planning Area Standards.
Alternatively, the properties could be considered for annexation and classified as SFR-
VLD allowing 1 du12.5 ac. in the City, but not provided water, sewer or other urban
services;
c. If the City, owners and LAFCO agree to annexation and classification for SFR-LD
development, the City could enable continued subdivision to 1 du/l.5ac. or 1 du/ac.;
and,
d. More urban density single-family lots or planned developments could be considered
subject to annexation but would require extensive infrastructure improvements such as
water, sewer, drainage, streets, fire, police and park facilities. This type of potential
appears feasible on only the few parcels fronting on Highway 227, subject to annexation.
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes to exclude approximately 700 acres of this area,
except the 60-acre portion fronting on Highway 227 which would remain within the URL &
SO1 to enable possible annexation, subject to SFR-LD-PD, Single-Family Residential, Low
Density, Planned Development.
Approximately 2865 acres of County LUE Residential Suburban properties in the Arroyo Grande
Fringe Area to the north would be recommended for an increased minimum parcel size of 21/2
acres rather than 1 acre as currently allowed, similar to the Planning Area standard established
by the County for the RS area southeast of the City. This new Planning Area Standard would
require County LUE amendment to implement but is more consistent with water, drainage,
grading and traffic constraints apparent in the Fringe Area.
Regarding alternatives, if not annexed and continued to develop in the County at current
Residential Suburban standards allowing 1, 2 and 3 acre lots, this 760 acre SO1 area alone
implies a potential for more than 500 rural homes, about triple the existing. The total RS area,
2,865 acres of the Arroyo Grande Fringe has an apparent potential of more than 2,000 dwellings
if divided into l-acre homesites as currently enabled. Further, the 3,585 acres of Residential
Rural Arroyo Grande Fringe Area implies a potential for an additional 700 dwellings at 1 du/5
acres allowed by the County, when fully developed. Combined, this Arroyo Grande Fringe Area
could contain 2700 rural dwellings and a population in excess of 8,000 residents, a community
about 50% of the current City of Arroyo Grande population within a 10 square mile area, almost
twice the geographic size of the City. The adverse impads of this Residential Rural and
EIR - 48 Item 9.a. - Page 253
Suburban sprawl, at a potential population density about 25% of the urban area is almost
beyond comprehension. Water, traffic and drainage impacts would be at least double the current
deficient conditions. Whether continued with individual wells and septic systems or provided by
potential community systems, the water consumption of this Fringe area should be estimated to
require 1500 acre feet per year, not currently allocated in safe annual yield evaluation of the
Arroyo Grande basin. Traffic from 2,700 rural dwellings would involve approximately 27,000 trips
per day on already deficient roads and Highway 227 traversing the area. Drainage from the
concentration of septic systems and disturbance of highly erosive soils by double the existing
amount of Residential Rural and Suburban developments would, unless mitigated, substantially
damage Tally Ho and Arroyo Grande Creek riparian water quality as well as internal drainage and
wetland areas. Public services for this potential unincorporated Fringe Area community of 8,000
residents would overwhelm available Lucia Mar Schools located in the City of Arroyo Grande, all
requiring student transportation. Doubling the existing number of dwellings in the Arroyo Grande
Fringe Area, approximately 15 minutes response time from both the San Luis Obispo airport or
Nipomo CDF fire stations, would require a permanent new fire station, manned and equipped
year around for increased wildland and structural fire hazards. These examples are only a few of
the major environmental impact implications of County Fringe Area development without urban
intensification.
County LUE amendment should evaluate alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce rather
than increase development intensity within the Arroyo Grande Fringe area, but this is clearly not
a logical expansion area for the City of Arroyo Grande. If annexed and developed at SFR-LD
development density of 1 du/ac. the 10 square mile Fringe Area would be twice the size as the
existing City and potentially equal to the current urban area population potential. More intensive
urban density development could double or triple these overwhelming implications. The
cumulative and growth-inducing impacts of urban expansion into only the 760 acre SO1 portion of
the Fringe area are beyond the scope of this Program EIR that proposes to exclude all but 60
acres of the current SO1 for City and South County Sanitation District expansions.
The impacts of this 60-acre SO1 will require a project EIR to evaluate annexation and
development alternatives and mitigation measures.
6 .) Cmho Mercado
Ex/sI/hg Condition4 PPrr P/ans and Regu/af/bns
Three undeveloped lots remain on the north side of Camino Mercado adjoining Open Space and
Single Family Residential as well as cemetery, office, motel and Five Cities Center Regional
Commercial uses. The 1990 General Plan indicates these parcels as part of the Oak Park Acres
PD, designated for convalescent hospital, club and office uses by the approved PD1.1 zoning.
The 2000 draft Land Use Policy map showed Regional Commercial for the entire Camino Mercado
area, including the cemetery, motel and office complex and undeveloped parcels.
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes Mixed-Use, Planned Development as a more appropriate
designation enabling residential, office or other MU-PD proposals rather than Regional
Commercial. The cemetery would be classified as Community Facility.
Impads ofthe Praposed General P/an -
The three remaining undeveloped lots on Camino Mercado are sloping hillside sites ranging from
1.4 to 4 acres each, with scattered coastal oaks and grassland vegetation. One lot has an
approved office complex not yet constructed and another office development is being considered
for the corner of West Branch and Camino Mercado, not yet approved. A senior housing
EIR - 49 Item 9.a. - Page 254
development was recently denied on the third undeveloped lot with traffic impacts and hillside
design being impact issues.
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes Mixed-Use, Planned Development for residential,
institutional, office and other MU-PD proposals including possible small scale visitor- serving and
community commercial uses. The cemetery would be classified as Community Facility.
The slopes on these lots are generally gradual and not subject to landslide or slope stability
concerns with required building design standards. Erosion potential would cumulatively
contribute to Meadow Creek siltation unless on-site or off-site mitigation is required. Water
supply is an additional impact concern with all development because General Plan buildout
projections approach or exceed current water entitlements if per capita consumption exceeds 160
gpd. Water conservation mitigation measures or supplemental supply will be required for full
buildout. Air quality impact criteria for Mixed-Use projects do not appear to involve further
analysis unless commercial uses are proposed requiring APCD review, Traffic studies will be
required for any project involving 20 or more peak hour trips and impacts to Camino Mercado,
West Branch and other area intersections that do not meet LOS 'C' criteria with mitigation would
be considered significant.
Biological resources do not appear to be involved on-site in the potential Mixed-Use Planned
Development of Camino Mercado lots, but off-site water quality due to erosion, siltation and/or
urban pollutants in storm water is a cumulative impact issue. Energy and mineral resources are
not at issue with potential development of these remaining lots, nor are hazards such as
landslide, flooding or wildland fires applicable to these sites. Noise may be a concern if
residential use is proposed due to commercial and freeway noise exposure. Public services and
utilities systems appear adequate for potential Mixed-Use Planned Development, but project
specific review would be required prior to approval. The sites are located on a hillside visible from
much of Freeway 101 and major streets and aesthetics of proposed development and
compatibility with neighbors to the east will be impact issues. Design review requirements will
mitigate this visual impact. Cultural resources are not known to exist on the undeveloped lots.
Recreation impacts would be relevant if residential use is proposed but mitigation fees would
reduce this concern to less than significant. Conclusion: Mixed-Use Planned Development of
undeveloped lots totaling approximately 10 acres is generally considered less than significant
impact potential except cumulative erosion, traffic and aesthetic concerns which would require
mitigation measures, depending on uses and project design. Project specific environmental
determinations will be required on each of the three undeveloped lots when Mixed-Use Planned
Developments are proposed.
A/fernalives, Eva/ualions and Exp/anations:
a. Create a PD classification similar to the 1990 plan and allow office, institutional and/or
residential uses, subject to PD approval;
b. Classify as CF and/or 0 and allow ,Community Facilities and/or Office;
c. Classify as SFR or MFR and encourage single family residential subdivision, planned
developments or multiple family development. Density could range from SFR-LD having
1 du/1.5 ac. or 1 du/ac to MFR-MH or HD enabling 9 du/ac or 14 du/ac.;
d. Classify as MU-PD, Mixed Use Planned Development enabling consideration of
commercial, office, institutional and/or residential planned developments; and,
EIR - 50 Item 9.a. - Page 255
e. Classify as RC, enabling Regional Commercial uses between the nearby Five Cities
(Walmart) and Oak Park (K-Mart) Shopping Centers.
Regarding alternative 'a,', the General Plan Update attempts to avoid the PD classification used in
the 1990 plan because that classification did not identify the actual uses allowed by Planned
Development, revealed only by research of related zoning and Development Code regulations.
Alternative 'b.' to enable Community Facility and/or Office uses would not reflect the diversity of
existing development that includes a motel and office complex. Neither CF nor 0 classification
would enable the opportunity for special needs residential or small scale visitor-serving or
community-serving commercial uses such as hotels, restaurants, convenience and specialty
stores. Alternative 'c.', classification as SFR-or MFR-PD would also restrict development to
residential Planned Development, making existing development legally non-confirming precluding
further non-residential Planned Development. Traffic, noise and other compatibility issues and
impacts make Single-Family Residential or Multi-Family Residential subdivision or Planned
Developments unlikely and less feasible than alternative Mixed-Uses. Alternate 'e.' classification
as Regional Commercial would enable and encourage remaining undeveloped lots to be
developed for regional shopping. The undeveloped lots are generally too small and sloping for
retail commercial development which would cause major grading, tree removal, aesthetic, traffic,
drainage and land use compatibility problems with existing office and motel and adjoining Single
Family Residential uses.
While Mixed-Use Planned Development may also involve commercial uses with similar impact
implications, the diversity of existing use and nearby Oak Park Plaza and adjacent Five Cities
shopping centers may warrant small scale regional commercial uses among the MU-PD potential
uses considered at this location. Commercial Mixed-Uses would probably require project specific
EIR, depending on type, design and site modifications required. Cumulative and growth inducing
impacts would be considered as part of possible commercial project EIRs but smaller scale, less
intensive MU-PD appear to involve less than significant impact potential.
7.) Wlage M~xed-Use Boundares and Uses
Ex/sf/hg Conditions, Pror P/ans and Regu/al/bns
The 1990 adopted General Plan has a Village Commercial specific boundary defined on the land
use map which includes several PF, SR and 0 zones but excludes adjoining Residential and
General Commercial areas to the west, north, east and south. The 2000 draft map expanded the
Village Center classification to include these internal and adjoining areas, but the enlarged
boundaries and allowed uses may create numerous non-conforming developments unless
clarified. For example two automobile sales agencies and at least 3 service stations exist on
Traffic Way and East Branch/Grand Avenue entrances to the Village. If classified VC, these
would be legally non-conforming and constrained from expansion or replacement if destroyed or
discontinued. These areas are currently zoned Highway Commercial which allows vehicle-
oriented and general commercial uses.
The 21-acre Myrtle and Cherry SFR-LD area was shown as SFR-MD on the 2000 draft map,
implying increase from 20du to approximately lOOdu potential.
Existing Single Family Residential development adjoining the Village to the west, north and east
are not logical candidates for Mixed-Use expansion, particularly commercial uses of the type
encouraged in the Village. The Office district southeast of the Village also extends to Whitely
Avenue which is also exclusively Single Family Residential use.
EIR - 51 Item 9.a. - Page 256
The 2000 draft map indicated Single Family Residential and Village Center land use on a 12-14
acre remaining 1990 Agriculture designated property south of Cherry Avenue east of Traffic Way
and a 5-acre adjoining hillside property. This subarea south of the Village is a significant Ag
preservation or conversion issue that must be addressed.
Each of these expansion areas is separately considered in the following descriptions because
each is already developed differently.
1,s of the Proposed Genera/ P/an
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes to classify:
7 W,-N), & E) Single Family residential areas to the west, north, east and southeast of E.
Branch commercial and civic uses SFR-MD rather than Village Core.
7 W&S) Existing Highway Commercial and General Commercial uses, both classified
as General Commercial on the 1990 plan, will be reclassified as MU, Mixed-
Use rather than VC, Village Core because each contains some uses that
would become legally non-conforming if classified VC.
7 S The undeveloped 2 acre portion of properties southeast of Traffic Way and
Cherry Avenue, classified General Commercial on the 1990 plan reclassified
Mixed-Use despite current Agricultural use and prime Ag soils.
This MU classification would require mitigation measures outlined in the
General Plan Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element text.
The 12 acres south of Cherry Avenue and east of Traffic Way frontage classified Agriculture on
the 1990 plan and was proposed as Single Family Residential-Medium Density by the draft 2000
Land Use Policy map, a "widowed" area of prime Ag soils implying exception to or mitigation of
loss of prime Ag use and soils. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes retention of the
Agriculture classification as an environmentally superior alternative. The adjoining 5 acre hillside
property (Hayes) not involving Ag use nor prime Ag soils would be reclassified from Ag to Single
Family Residential, Low Density and C/OS, Conservation/Open Space, This parcel is accessible
from Cherry Avenue and Huebner Lane, a private drive also used for maintenance access to a
City water tank further southeast adjoining FredericVALC properties discussed as subarea 8
hereinafter. (The steep vegetated hillside traversed by Huebner Lane off Branch Mill Road is an
environmentally sensitive Conservation/Open Space area while the water tank site is classified
Community Facility.)
One change to the 1990 General Plan and current zoning different than the prior proposals
discussed during formulation of the 2001 General Plan Update, involves the approximately 21-
acre area south of Arroyo Grande Creek east of Garden Street along Myrtle and East Cherry
Avenue. The 2000 draft Land Use Policy map proposed this area of existing large lots as a
potential Single Family Residential, Medium Density, which would enable almost 100 dwellings
compared to the existing potential for 22 1-acre lots. The 2001 General Plan instead proposes
consideration of alternative from LD to MD ranging form 20 to 100 du [Single Family Residential,
Low Medium Density which would enable approximately 55 dwellings at a density of 2.5du/ac.,
an increase of about 33 over existing potential]. It shoutd be recognized that this fragmented
large lot area may require area owners to cooperate for future subdivision planning since street,
drainage, water, sewer and other infrastructure for single family residential development are
currently inadequate. If coordination or cooperation is lacking or more intensive residential
EIR - 52 Item 9.a. - Page 257
subdivision is proposed, a project EIR for mitigation of potentially significant impacts would be
required.
Other than this subarea and Village Core Mixed Use projects, the impacts of the proposed 2001
General Plan Update are not substantially different than considered with the 1990 General Plan.
Avoiding Village expansion into existing Single Family Residential subdivided and developed areas
to the west, north and east reduces potential change to less than significant. Similarly,
classification as Mixed Use rather than Village Core or General Commercial to the west and south
better reflects established existing uses including auto dealerships, service stations, motel,
highway and general commercial service uses. The more confined Village Core potential along
East Branch, Traffic Way and Station Way may involve potentially significant traffic, parking, flood
protection, historic resource and other impact issues discussed below but also associated with the
1990 General Plan, the 'no project' alternative.
The most significant proposed land use and planning change and impact potential to the VC
classification is allowance for residential uses. The potential for additional population and
housing is somewhat speculative and will depend on individual VC Mixed Use developments that
will be subject to subsequent environmental determinations and possible project EIRs. Most of
the VC area is subject to seismic, safety and building design mitigation measures to address
geophysical, fire, flood and other safety hazards. Cumulative water resource concerns associated
with projected urban use exceeding current water supply entitlements are relevant with VC
intensification or expansion, but the service infrastructure for delivery and fire suppression is
already established and required regardless of proposed changes. Water quality impacts due to
increased intensity and urban pollution of storm drainage directly into adjoining Tally Ho and
Arroyo Grande Creeks is an issue requiring further City analysis and mitigation. Regional Water
Quality Control basin plan amendments and recent EPA storm water pollution prevention plan
requirements will influence future development project potential and required mitigation
measures. The "multi-modal" mixed-use of Village Core development will reduce potential air
quality impacts and transportation/circulation issues compared to alternative single purpose
Regional Commercial development. But the recognized parking deficiencies and circulation
constraints apparent along East Branch Street through the Village Core will obviously complicate
proposed expansion or intensification proposals or projects. Specifically, it is very doubtful that
Village Core projects could comply with LOS 'C' traffic mitigation criteria required by current
development policy.
Portions of the Village Core also adjoin Arroyo Grande and Tally Ho Creeks which inherently
involve biological resources, flood hazards and drainagelwater quality impacts.
Energy and mineral resources are not at issue with Village Core development. Fire, seismic and
flood hazards and related mitigation such as unreinforced masonry building retrofit, flood
protection and fire suppression problems related to historic buildings are all unavoidable impact
issues. If residential uses are integrated into the Village Core, noise, parking and public services
and facilities are increasingly complex, regardless of general desirability of such Mixed Uses.
Both aesthetics and land use compatibility issues will require refinement of Village Core design
guidelines and development standards. Additionally, the preservation of historic buildings is a
project-related as well as cumulative impact issue particularly in the Village Core where numerous
substandard but historic or culturally significant structures remain. Recreation related impacts
can be mitigated to less than significant by project design linking creekside and streetscape
pedestrian areas and plazas to the Nelson Green and other urban Village Core amenities as well
as contribution to park in-lieu fees for recreation improvements. Village Core intensification and
expansion does not introduce new growth inducing or cumulative impact issues despite increased
employment and economic development opportunities identified by the Update compared to the
1990 General Plan and EIR.
EIR - 53 Item 9.a. - Page 258
A/i.ernates, E~a/lrafons and Exphnations
Village Core enhancement and expansion of the historic pedestrian-oriented resident and tourist-
serving commercial, office and compatible mixed uses is a basic planning objective. This does
not, however, require redevelopment of any areas adjoining the existing Village Core. A gradual
transition and more dispersed character, while still pedestrian oriented, is more characteristic of
the "rural small town" qualities already evident in these predominantly non-residential areas.
Several Core expansion opportunities are apparent without encroaching into the single-family
subdivisions and development west of Wesley, north of Le Point, east of the foot of Crown Hill or
south of the "Nelson Green" frontage. The basic alternatives focus on Station Way, Traffic Way
and E. Branch adjoining the Village Core, excluding established residential areas.
The Station Way commercial development known as "Village Center" is one opportunity for
evolution into a more diverse, pedestrian oriented shopping, dining and office complex with
different "rural" rather than historic architectural character. As Bridge Street and Traffic Way
become more intensive extensions of the Village Core, the Village Center can also evolve into a
compatible, connected and more concentrated activity "node" as part of the Village Core area.
Similarly, Village Core expansion easterly on E. Branch Street to the foot of the Crown Hill is
already in progress and evolving with "Creekside Center" proposed on the 3.5 acre Loomis
property. This mixed-use development would contain approximately 33,000 sq.ft. of retail and
office use and four dwellings.
The current City Hall, Council Chambers office buildings and convenience store and converted
residential structures near Mason Street can all be retained or evolve to a more concentrated
pedestrian-oriented shopping, service, dining, civic and cultural activity center with additional
buildings added along the street frontage. To the extent feasible, historic buildings should be
retained and restored, but if replacement or relocation is necessary, the new structures should
emphasize the design characteristics of the historic Village Core: Two or three story, finely
detailed storefront and pedestrian streetscape is essential on E. Branch. For the most part,
parking behind or beside buildings with minimum driveway crossings of E. Branch Street will best
achieve the Village Core expansion and encourage the desired design character.
The preliminary concept of Village Core expansion proposed by 2000 draft Land Use policy,
extended south of Poole along Traffic Way to Freeway 101. This alternative would encompass
two automobile sales and service agencies which are clearly different character than Village Core,
Many other existing uses, including motel, swim club, service station and auto repair shops,
storage and various other general and highway commercial uses make this area a diverse Mixed
Use area as reflected in the proposed 2001 General Plan Update. Classification as Village Core
while an alternative, would make the prevailing use pattern legally non-conforming and imply
relocation and redevelopment rather than recycling buildings and retention of many existing
uses. Another alternative for the Traffic Way frontage would be to classify it General Commercial
or Highway Commercial to encourage these uses rather than enabling offices, retail and
residential components in the proposed Mixed-Use district. Either accommodates existing auto
sales and service and enables similar automobile-oriented businesses and commercial services in
the Traffic Way area.
The most controversial alternative in Land Use study subarea "7-S" involves the 12 acres of
residual Agriculture land on the south side of Cherry Avenue, currently cultivated. The range of
uses possible on these 12 acres spans from Agriculture preservation to allowing Village Core
Mixed Use or Business Park. Because single-family homes front on the north side of Cherry
Avenue, adjoin to the east and are above on the hillside along Trinity Avenue, residential is a
consistent, compatible development alternative. Neo-traditional or other compact subdivision for
EIR - 54 Item 9.a. - Page 259
Single-Family Residential, Medium Density, Planned Development would fit the developed
environs but involve potential cumulative significant impacts associated with Ag conversion,
possibly contrary to Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element policies outlined in the
General Plan Update. In addition to loss of Ag land, Ag conversion involves land use and
planning issues, population and housing policy implications, traffic and circulation impacts and air
quality impacts associated with development. It can be estimated that at 5 du/ac, 12 acres of
SFR-MD Planned Development would enable a potential for 60 dwellings or 180 residents, 600
trips per day for example.
Geophysical, water resource and water quality and biological resources associated with Planned
Development of Ag land conversion are not substantially different than alternative residential
development areas, but this illustrates that Ag land conversion is NOT essential or without option.
Energy and mineral resources are not at issue nor are hazards and noise significant issues with
potential development of this property. The basic justification for Ag conversion is the availability
and efficiency of public services, utilities and service systems adjoining and surrounding these 14
acres. Partial conversion for Mixed Use further reduces and isolates the remaining acreage
currently cultivated and irrigated despite urban environs. Water, sewer, drainage, garbage, fire,
police, parks, schools and other infrastructure and facilities are all established in the area and
capable of servicing alternative SFR-MD-PD and Mixed Use development. Design and
development mitigations would be determined by site and project specific EIR including aesthetic,
cultural resource and recreation impacts and alternatives. No growth inducing impacts are
apparent with this possible Ag conversion, but cumulative impacts have been identified as
significant as a matter of policy.
As a preferred alternative, the 2001 General Plan Update proposes Single Family Residential Low
to Medium Density subdivision of an already fragmented residential area further east on Cherry
and Myrtle Avenues.
8 .) FredericwAL C and W/fiams Properlies Inside and OuMe of Cii L/inits
and Sphere of Influence (SO/)
Ex/sI/hg Condilions, Pr/br P/ms and Regu//atons
The 1990 General Plan designates the portions of the Frederick/ALC properties within the City as
Residential Rural and Residential Hillside with the latter requiring Specific Plan and encouraging
cluster development possibly including other uses. The portion of Fredericks property outside the
City north of Freeway 101 and El Campo Road is classified Agriculture in the County Land Use
Element but is within the adopted Sphere of Influence implying potential annexation. The
Williams property further southeast is outside the San Luis Bay planning area, designated
Agriculture and outside the City's adopted Sphere of Influence. The FredericWALC properties are
pending separate Specific Plan and EIR consideration, known as Arroyo Linda Crossroads.
The 2000 draft land use map indicated Business Park and Regional Commercial classifications on
most of the FredericVALC property within a Specific Plan combining designation, except Open
Space and Conservation overlay along the north edge near Branch Mill Road. Residential Hillside
integrated into the proposed Specific Plan was not reflected in this prior preliminary General Plan
proposal. The Williams property was excluded from the City's prior 2000 draft map.
Impacfs of the Proposed Genera/P/ar,
The 2001 General Plan Update draft land use map proposes the FredericWALC property be
classified Specific Plan and Specific Plan Reserve without underlying land uses prescribed within
the City limits and within the proposed Urban Reserve Line and existing SOI.
EIR - 55 Item 9.a. - Page 260
The 2001 General PIan Update also proposes that the 200-acre Williams family property further
southeast be classified as SP Reserve, subject to approval of SO1 amendment by LAFCO and
separate, but coordinated Specific PIan and EIR consideration by the City. These unresolved
Specific Planned developments within the City limits and involving 185-acre potential
FredericwALC Specific Plan Reserve phased expansion and 200-acre future Williams property
Specific Plan Reserve for further expansion are a major new and unique urban growth alternative
for the City of Arroyo Grande. These are the only remaining substantial sized non-prime
Agriculture undeveloped properties adjoining Arroyo Grande not fragmented like Residential
Suburban subdivisions to the north and southeast of Freeway 101, nor urban like Oceano, Grover
Beach and Pismo Beach.
The magnitude of these potential expansions and the resultant impacts are almost without
historic precedent if predominantly non-residential or Mixed-Use development is enabled by
Specific Plan. Unlike the three prior large Planned Developments northwest of the older City -
Oak Park Acres, Rancho Grande and Royal Oak Estates - Arroyo Linda Crossroads proposes
Business Park and certain Regional Commercial Uses oriented to a new El Campo Road
Interchange with Freeway 101. With 107 acres undeveloped inside the City and 185 acres
outside the City limits but inside the SO1 and URL, the FredericwALC properties propose 292
acres of employment growth and economic development opportunity previously not considered.
If 200 acres of Williams property is added, the 492 acre southeasterly urban expansion potential
is almost double that of Frederick/ALC alone. In fact, the City could extend physically to the foot
of Picacho Hill, based on geographic constraints alone.
Environmental impacts and resource constraints require careful consideration, development
phasing and comprehensive EIR. These are the basic reasons that Specific Plan, SP Reserve and
EIRs are essential for proper land use and planning. The pending Specific Plan proposes
primarily non-residential development containing 100 dwellings or an approximate residential
population of 300. All new construction would conform to building safety standards and avoid
possible natural hazards such as slope stability or landslide hazard on steep slopes. Conceptually,
as explained in the Specific Plan and EIR for Arroyo Linda Crossroads, the potential project
involves approximately 57,000 sq. ft. of offices; 680,000 sq. ft. of research and development
business park use; 55,000 sq ft. of specialty retail; 185,000 sq. ft. of vehicle sales; 210,000 sq. ft.
shopping center; 175 hotel/motel rooms; several restaurants and service stations and other
visitor and resident-serving commercial uses in two phases of development.
The project EIR estimates that phase 1 development in the City would consume 58 acre feetlyear
of water resources at full development according to the Specific Plan. Assuming annexation of
the 185-acre phase 2 SO1 area, without including Williams properties, accounts for an additional
120 acre feetlyear of water consumption in this portion of the Specific Plan Reserve. Storm
drainage and flood control would be provided on site but Specific Planned Development would
cumulatively contribute downstream to 10-year peak storm criteria and urban pollutants and
potential degradation of the Arroyo Grande Creek water quality. Both on-site and off-site
siltation basins, detention or retention ponding would partially mitigate these water quality
concerns intercepting storm drainage prior to discharge into the creek system
The business park and commercial character of proposed Specific Planned development would
potentially generate significant added traffic and an estimated 55 Ibs per day of air quality
emissions: Traffic and circulation impacts will contribute significantly to air quality impacts both
directly and indirectly by provided new jobs in the region, fueling additional housing demand and
requiring commuting from jobs to housing. The essential circulation and transportation
infrastructure for the project must include El Campo Road interchange with Freeway 101 and
Traffic Way extension for local street connection, but regional and local traffic congestion will
EIR - 56 Item 9.a. - Page 261
impact other routes despite these new proposed facilities. (See project EIR, SCH #97081048 for
more information).
A/fernatives, Eva/uaf/bns and Exp/anaI/bns;
a. The undeveloped City portions, zoned RR and RH, the latter subject to Specific Plan,
could be classified as SFR-LD-PD C/OS and to enable single family residential low density
planned development and Conservation/Open Space. This would encourage low density
residential rather than business park or non-residential planned development at either
1 du/1.5 ac. or 1 du/ac. on the hillside parcels currently in the City, excluding steep or
vegetated areas as Conservation/Open Space;
b. The FredericVALC properties within the City could be classified as MU-SP, BP-SP or RC-
SP to enable or encourage a Mixed Use, Business Park or Regional Commercial focus,
subject to Specific Plan approval;
c. The FredericVALC properties could be classified as SP and SP Reserve, the latter
involving the portion outside the City limits but in the City's Sphere of Influence, without
prescribing a primary land use classification. This enables the most flexibility but
provides less direction to the property owner regarding potential development
alternatives to be considered in the Specific Plan;
d. The portions of Frederick/ALC properties outside the City could be designated differently
than those inside the City such as Conservation/Open Space or Agriculture with or
without Specific Plan for undefined urban use potential; and,
e. The Williams property further southeast and outside current City Sphere of Influence
could be proposed to be added, dependent on coordination or combination with the
FredericUALC Specific Plan Reserve or the current County Agriculture classification could
be retained or it could be reclassified as C/OS, Conservation/Open Space.
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes that these subareas be classified Specific Plan and
Specific Plan Reserves without prescribing primary land use designations, a combination of
alternate 'c' and 'e'. The potential impacts of Specific Planned development will be
determined by project specific EIRs required prior to Specific Plan approvals.
Regarding alternatives, the SFR-LD-PD classification alternative 'a,' is essentially the 'no project'
alternative, effectively leaving the 1990 residential classifications and substituting Planned
Development rather than Specific Plan for the large parcels in the City. Alternative 'b.' would
endorse a particular non-residential or mixed-use development option subject to Specific Plan
approval. Without benefit of project economic and environmental evaluations, this would be
more speculative. Alternative 'd.', with property outside the City retained as ConservationlOpen
Space or Agriculture, would be the environmentally superior 'no project' alternative. The
inclusion of the Williams property as well as Frederick/ALC, increases the potential for urban
expansion but unless and until a Specific Plan and project EIR is prepared and adopted and the
properties included in the SO1 are annexed, the large acreage parcels will continue to be
Agricultural classified under County jurisdiction.
EIR - 57 Item 9.a. - Page 262
9). Va//ey Road Agricu/ture
Ex~sling Conditions, Phr Phs and Reguhlions
South of Fair Oaks Avenue and Arroyo Grande High School, on both sides of Valley Road, outside
the City limits, the County Land Use Element classifies the unincorporated properties as
Agriculture, partially Flood Hazard combining district along Arroyo Grande Creek. Because of
prime soils and agriculture use, the 141-acre area is excluded from the City's Sphere of Influence
despite being literally surrounded by urban developments within the City limits. The 2000 draft
land use map excluded this Agriculture enclave reflecting current City limits.
The 2001 draft General Plan Update proposes this surrounded Agriculture area remain outside
the City's Sphere of Influence designated County Agriculture.
The 2001 General Plan Update reflects that inclusion within the Sphere of Influence, implying
potential annexation, would be contrary to LAFCO criteria and could be misinterpreted as
conducive to Agriculture conversion. The 2001 General Plan Update and EIR propose this area to
remain under County jurisdiction and Agriculture classification outside the SO1 and Urban Reserve
line, to promote Agriculture preservation. The area to the south to the Los Berros drainage and
west to Halcyon Road will also be shown on the General Plan Update as County Agriculture
classification.
Two relatively minor but important SO1 boundary changes are proposed by the 2001 General
Plan Update south of current City limits. One involves an existing Church at the southeast corner
of Valley Road and Los Berros Road currently outside the City and LAFCO approved Sphere of
Influence. The 2001 Update proposes to include this existing church in the SO1 enabling
annexation to the City. The other involves an undeveloped triangular shaped 1.7 acre parcel on
the east side of Halcyon Road south of an unincorporated area Mobile Home Park, both currently
included in the adopted Sphere of Influence.
The City does not support the current County Residential Multiple Family classification of the
undeveloped triangle nor proposed residential subdivision of the property. Annexation of the
undeveloped property is impossible without also including the existing Mobile Home Park
adjoining the City, but that has not been proposed. Without annexation, the undeveloped parcel
should remain undeveloped, and the City proposes that the 2001 General Plan Update exclude
the undeveloped triangle from the SO1 and recombined with the County Agriculture classified
property to the southeast.
Impah of the Proposed Genera/ Ph
The proposed plan is essentially to leave the property outside City SO1 and URL, classified
Agriculture in the County jurisdiction. This is the 'no project' alternate, involving no change from
current conditions or prior plans, but adding the County Agriculture classification on the Urban
Land Use Element map to show the actual and planned use of this enclave surrounded by urban
use. There are no environmental impacts associated with this 'no project' alternative despite the
map change to show Agriculture use.
Altermalives, Eva/ualions and Exp/mlions;
a. The Agriculture classified areas could be retained as Ag regardless of prime vs. non-
prime soils or current use or ownership;
b. The High School owned property could be classified CF, Community Facility and private
hillside areas between the High School and Mobile Home Park classified SFR-LD-PD to
EIR - 58 Item 9.a. - Page 263
enable consideration of single-family residential, low density, planned development at 1
du/1.5 ac. or 1 du/ac.;
c. The properties currently outside the City could remain outside the City's Sphere of
Influence and retained as County Agriculture classification; and,
d. The County LUE could be amended to enable Residential Suburban development on
hillside portions of the area retaining the bulk of Valley Road for Agriculture outside the
City's Sphere of Influence implying no potential additional annexation.
The reclassification of High School owned property as Community Facility alternative 'b.' and
retention of Agriculture outside the City's SOI, alternative 'c' is the proposed 2001 Update, and
effectively the 'no project' alternative. The hillside non-prime Agriculture as well as the prime
cultivated, irrigated bottomlands are retained as Agriculture. This is the environmentally
superior, 'no project' alternative compared to possible non-prime Ag land conversion for
Residential Hillside or County Residential Suburban development.
10 .) Fard Avenue
South of Soto Sports Complex, the 1990 General Plan indicates Residential Suburban within a
Specific Plan for an un-subdivided 10-acre agricultural property adjoining residential Planned
Development to the west and Multiple Family subdivisions to the south and east along Farroll
Avenue. The 2000 draft land use map designated this undeveloped agricultural property as
Multiple Family without the PD or SP combining district. The City has received preliminary
proposal from the property owner for a Residential Suburban conventional subdivision of this
remaining agricultural property, subject to Specific Plan approval required by the 1990 General
Plan, enabling 2.5 du/ac. or 25 dwellings.
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes SFR-LM-PD with PD rather than Specific Plan combining
designation to encourage cluster residential Planned Development, including possible expansion
of Soto Sports Complex or private park and recreation or ponding basin potential.
Impacts of the Proposed Genera/ P/an
Rather than conventional subdivision into 25 large lots, the proposed 2001 General Plan Update
encourages an equal or greater number of smaller Single Family Residential lots on a portion of
the property with the remainder devoted to expansion of park and recreation/sports complex and
ponding basin facilities. This is similar to the 'no project' alternative, enabling the same density
of residential use requiring Specific Plan as provided in the 1990 General Plan, but encouraging
cluster to retain functional open space. Despite current agricultural use, the property does not
involve prime Ag soils and is level with no apparent geophysical constraints to development.
Population and housing would be proportional to the development intensity of residential use.
The proposed SFR-LM-PD would accommodate approximately 25 homes, compared to alternative
higher density residential potential of 45 or 90 dwellings if classified SFR-MD-PD or MFR-MH-PD.
No slope stability risk is apparent and liquifrcation risk will be evaluated prior to any Planned
Development. Water resources for cumulative development potential is an impact concern, but
urban use will reduce water consumption compared to current irrigated agricultural use on this
site. Storm drainage and water quality concerns can be mitigated on site with potential ponding
and recharge basin or off site.
EIR - 59 Item 9.a. - Page 264
Potential development of 25 dwellings implies 250 trips per day traffic impacts and less than 10
Ibs, per day of air quality emissions. Single Family Residential Planned Development is inherently
automobile oriented, a pattern already established by adjoining existing uses. Because of prior
agricultural use, there are no biological resources or cultural resources apparent on the property.
There are no apparent safety hazards such as flooding or wildland fire affecting this property and
liquefaction/settlement risk will require site-specific geotechnical study. Noise and lighting glare
particularly from night events at Soto Sports Complex adjoining to the north is an impact issue
that will require mitigation as part of Planned Development. Public services and utilities are
available to the property, surrounded by residential development, but impacts on these facilities
and services will be off-set by fees for school, park, fire, drainage, water, and sewer. Although
Planned Development will be subject to design review and special site planning and cluster
development would be aesthetically attractive, the conversion from agricultural use is a
degradation to existing rural character. Recreation impacts of potential Planned Development
may be mitigated by in-lieu fees, but opportunity for park and ponding expansion and public or
private recreational facilities as part of Planned Development is apparent on this site. Provision
for public access to Soto Sports Complex off Farroll Avenue should be considered with PD
approval.
A/ternalives, Evdualions and Exp/analions:
a. Classify the parcel Ag and allow one unit;
b. Classify the property SFR-VLD or LD-PD or SP and enable very low or low density single
family residential planned development ranging from 1 du12.5 ac., 1 du/1.5 ac., 1 dulac.
implying from 4 to 10 lots, subject to PD or Specific Plan approval;
c. Classify the parcel SFR-LM or MD enabling single-family residential subdivision at 2.5
dulac. or 4.5 dulac. approximately 25 to 45 homes, with or without PD or SP;
d. Classify the ten acres as half CF and half MFR. Community Facilities would imply
expansion of Soto Sports Complex park and ponding basins or other recreation or
institutional uses. Multiple Family Residential would enable duplex, four-plex or
apartment uses at 9 dulac. or 45+/- units on 5 acres or 90 units on 10 acres; and,
e. Classify as PD or SP without primary land use designation enabling Mixed Use, special
housing and/or institutional uses, depending on PD or Specific Plan approval by the City.
Regarding alternatives, the environmentally superior choice would be 'a', retaining agriculture use
and allowing only one dwelling under the Ag classification. Lower density Single Family
Residential classifications allowing 1 du12.5 ac. or 1 dulac., enabling 4 to 10 dwellings, would
also reduce development impacts compared to the 25 dwellings proposed. Conversely, allowing
4.5 du/ac. or 9 dulac., increasing development potential to 45 or 90 homes, are alternatives that
would increase development impacts. Any Planned Development will require project
environmental determination and may require project EIR if project significant impacts are
apparent. The alternative of requiring a Specific Plan on this 10-acre "infill" site is considered
equivalent to Planned Development, the latter preferred as a combining zoning designation
encouraging cluster residential or variations to conventional subdivision. In any event, the
project specific environmental determination or EIR will define mitigation measures appropriate
for the PD design.
EIR - 60 Item 9.a. - Page 265
1 1. ) East Grand Avenue Mixed-Use CorrYor Boundafles
E~sting Condif/ons, P&r P/ms and Reguhths
The 1990 General Plan land use map classifies most of East Grand Avenue west of Freeway 101
as General Commercial adjoining residential areas to the north and south. A small portion of the
GC classified area is shown within a Specific Plan area now known as Berry Gardens. The 2000
draft land use map initiated consideration of a new Mixed Use Corridor classification along East
Grand Avenue with Specific Plan combining designations for the Mixed-Use area west of Juniper
and a large Specific Plan overlay for the residential and commercial zoned triangle south of 101,
east of Halcyon Avenue and including East Grand Avenue frontage:
The boundaries and abutting land uses of the Mixed-Use corridor require clarification or changes
to better reflect existing and proposed land use refinements currently being considered by the
City without Specific Plan combining designations.
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes that the Single Family Residential developed areas south
and north of the East Grand Avenue Mixed Use Corridor should remain SFR-MD classifications
rather than Multiple Family Residential or Mixed Use. The Update also excludes the Specific Plan
overlay or PD combining designation as unnecessary and would duplicate individual property
development design review and require cooperation of many separate owners, effectively
discouraging Mixed Use. Distinct mixtures of uses and property development standards will be
formulated for each segment of the East Grand Avenue corridor; Gateway, Midway and Highway
subareas. The City will formulate these design and development guidelines as a refinement to
Mixed Use zoning consideration after General Plan Update adoption.
Impacts offhe Proposed Genera/ P%n
The retention of existing Single-Family Residential developed areas north and south of Grand
Svenue Mixed Use corridor eliminates potential significant changes to Multiple Family Residential
o: Mixed Use implying substantial redevelopment. This is essentially the environmentally
superior, 'no project' alternative reflecting existing use. The reclassification of East Grand
Avenue corridor as "Mixed-Use" rather than General Commercial is considered a beneficial land
use and planning change adding possible retail, office, institutional and residential uses to already
allowed general and highway commercial uses. The increased diversity of permitted uses, yet to
be resolved by Development Code and zoning amendments, will however, involve some potential
adverse impacts as well.
The population and housing enabled by Mixed Use are somewhat speculative to estimate, but
clearly enable substantial multi-family units above office and commercial or even intermixed on a
property-by- property pattern. This inherently implies potential land use compatibility concerns
and increases possible development intensity and density. If multiple family uses are proposed
on 25% of current commercial zoned and undeveloped or potentially redeveloped large parcels,
the cumulative impacts are considerable for housing and population projections.
EIR - 61 Item 9.a. - Page 266
Although only estimates, for example, Traffic Analysis Zone land use projections for Gateway,
Midway and Highway segments of East Grand Avenue Mixed Use Corridor (TAZ #38, 46 and 51,
respectively) are itemized below:
Potential
Potential
MFR / 60 / Dwelling units I
Office 1 40000 ( Square ft.
Potential I Retail 1 80000
Existing I SF / 4
Square ft.
Dwelling Units I
Potential
Potential
Potential
Combining these three projections for potential use, in addition to existing, indicates
approximately 140 new dwelling units, 70,000 square feet of added office space, and 125,000 sq.
ft. of new retail space, as well as 15 acres of undefined Mixed Uses and at least 10 auto service
commercial establishments or restaurants. Assuming 2.5 persons per multiple family dwelling
average household population reveals that the residential component of estimated Mixed Use
would accommodate about 350 added population. Almost 200,000 sq. ft. of added office and/or
retail also implies at least 400 new jobs (at 1 employee per 500 sq. ft). Mixed Use encourages
shorter commutes, live-work combinations and more transit efficient land use but the added
residential potential is off-set by reduction of alternative General Commercial uses. The impacts
of Mixed Use are substantial compared to undeveloped or underdeveloped existing use but
probably similar to or less than alternative General Commercial development. In any event, each
Mixed Use project will require an environmental determination to evaluate actual proposed
development and resultant impacts.
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
In general, current construction standards would mitigate seismic and building safety concerns.
Water consumption will be determined based on use probably but not substantially different than
possible General Commercial: Water resources for cumulative development remains a potential
significant issue. Controlled storm drainage from Mixed Use development will not be significantly
different than from the General Commercial development alternative, but will increase the
cumulative need for additional storm water detention and/or retention. Either on-site private or
increased off-site public ponding basin capacity will be needed.
MFR
Office
Retail
Traffic generation and mitigation is the single most apparent adverse impact issue with either
Mixed Use or General Commercial intensification along this already congested corridor. Project
mitigation will be evaluated individually to reduce trip generation and correct existing and
potential circulation deficiencies to the degree feasible. It is apparent, however, that either
Mixed Use or alternative General Commercial developments would contribute to intersections and
segments already deficient to LOS 'C' criteria. Even with no additional local development, this
corridor is a regional arterial experiencing continued external trip increases despite existing
circulation deficiencies.
MFR
Office
Retail
Other Commercial
The continued planning of Mixed Use rather than strip General Commercial development may
require a statement of overriding considerations to enable implementation involving significant
adverse traffic as well as air quality impacts. APCD is very supportive toward Mixed Use and
transit efficient development versus conventional strip commercial use and recognizes the
50
20000
40000
EIR - 62
Dwelling Units
Square ft.
Square ft.
30
10000
5000
10
Dwelling units
Square ft.
Square ft.
Auto service repairlrestaurants
Item 9.a. - Page 267
comparative advantages and trip reduction achieved by the proposed type of development,
despite air quality compliance problems on a regional basis.
Biological resources are minimal on most undeveloped or partially developed properties but
would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. Similarly, few or no hazards are apparent in
the Mixed Use corridor area. Noise is a potential site planning and environmental issue
particularly for residential uses exposed to high volume arterial traffic noise sources, but can be
mitigated by site planning and construction design measures. Energy and mineral resources are
not at issue. Public services, utilities and facilities are generally adequate or planned for
deficiency correcting capital improvements in any event. (Some water, sewer, drainage and
poter~tial undergrounding of overhead utilities is already part of City Capital Improvement
Program and Redevelopment Implementation Strategy). School and park and recreation impacts
may be mitigated by fee payments or project level mitigation. Mixed Use is generally more
aesthetic and attractive than General Commercial alternative development but mitigated by
project design review requirements in any event. Cultural resources are not a major concern in
this partially developed General Commercial setting.
Mixed-Use corridor impact potential are cumulatively significant although composed of individual
projects which may be less than significant with appropriate traffic, noise, drainage and
infrastructure mitigation measures. The impacts of alternative General Commercial, the 'no
project' alternative would, however, be equal or greater in most regards.
A/ternatives, Eva/uaI/ons and Exp/anations:
a. Single family residential developed subdivisions not fronting on Grand Avenue can be
excluded from the MU, Mixed Use classification and retained a SFR or reclassified and
slowly redeveloped as MFR;
6. The large Specific Plan combining designation overlays at the Gateway and Highway ends
of the Grand Avenue Mixed-use corridor could be considered as individual PD, planned
developments, rather than a prerequisite Specific Plan;
c. The Grand Avenue corridor could distinguish between Gateway, Midway and Highway
segments by different permitted commercial, office, institutional and residential uses;
d. The entire Mixed-Use corridor could be proposed as one or more Specific Plan areas,
subject to City approval of unspecified private proposals, but requiring many adjoining
owners to coordinate and prepare a cooperative plan prior to substantial development;
0 r,
e. Mixed Use could be proposed on individual parcels without any prerequisite Specific Plan
or Planned Development but controlled by site plan and design review.
Regarding alternative 'a', the City does not intend to encourage nor convert stable Single Family
Residential neighborhoods or blocks to scattered Multiple Family residential developments or total
redevelopment. There is ample inventory of undeveloped and underdeveloped General
Commercial property to enable Multiple family residential development as part of Mixed Use
corridor. The density of separate MFR within MU classified areas can be 9 to 14 du/ac. or even
higher for special needs housing. The proportion of multi-family, office, commercial and other
uses in the Mixed-Use developments will be at the discretion of the developer subject to City
approval. With 15 acres estimated as Mixed Use, and assuming 25% MFR at 10 du/ac. would
enable 375'dwellings in addition to the estimated 140 new dwellings on separate properties. This
reveals that more than 500 units could be developed to house more than 1000 residents along
EIR - 63 Item 9.a. - Page 268
the East Grand Avenue Mixed Use corridor if this type of housing proves marketable. This
potential is more than ample without redevelopment or encroachment into stable SFR
neighborhoods.
As previously noted, the City intends to avoid redundant Specific Plan or Planned Development
processes and believes that Mixed Use design review, development guidelines and environmental
determinations on a project specific, property specific basis will be sufficient to achieve
coordinated compatible uses and quality design. The City intends to prescribe certain permitted
and prohibited uses, pedestrian scale streetscape design and architectural guidelines and where
necessary, basic land use and site plan and circulation and parking criteria to enable coordination
or cooperation of several adjoining properties. This will avoid the complicated process of
prerequisite Specific Plans or Planned Developments involving many owners to prepare a
cooperative plan prior to substantial individual development. Such a requirement could deter or
delay desired Mixed Use development on parcels already pursuing commercial and office
developments.
Mixed Use corridor is considered the environmentally superior alternative compared to General
Commercial, but the use controls can be as flexible or rigid and as open or closed to increased
intensity as the City defines as desirable, and developers find feasible.
12. ) E/ Camino Rea/
E~sfing Condfionbns, Pr/br P/'s and Regu/al/bns
The frontage of El Camino Real along the south side of Freeway 101 is designated with six
different land use classifications on the 1990 General Plan land use map. Between Oak Park
Road and Brisco Road, the frontage is classified General Commercial, Office, Multiple Family,
Single Family and Industrial. From Brisco Road to Grand Avenue, the frontage of El Camino Real
is Public Facility for the cemetery and General Commercial east of Halcyon Road to Grand
Avenue. The 2000 draft land use map showed most of this corridor as Regional Commercial, but
segments were also classified Single and Multi-Family, Community Facility and Mixed-Use with
Specific Plan combining designation.
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes to classify the entire El Camino Real frontage Mixed Use
including residential and office as well as existing Industrial and General Commercial uses. A
Specific Plan or Planned Development on these relatively small parcels is unnecessary because it
could effectively discourage more appropriate Mixed-Use proposals on individual ownership. The
City will instead control Mixed-Use by Conditional Use Permit, a simpler process than PD or SP.
Only the cemetery between Brisco Road and Halcyon Avenue southwest of El Camino Real would
be classified Community Facility to reflect its public ownership and specific purpose.
Impacts offhe Genera/ P/an
Along most of El Camino Real the developed properties, including homes, condos, multiple family
residential, office, commercial service, highway and tourist service such as motel and restaurants,
service station, auto repair and General Commercial or Industrial uses, lumber, hardware, truck
rental and outdoor furniture to name a few would all be conforming uses. New Business Park,
Regional Commercial, auto sales and other alternative uses could be considered as permitted or
conditional uses when this Mixed Use classification and zoning regulations are prepared for City
adoption subsequent to the General Plan.
EIR - 64 Item 9.a. - Page 269
Any substantial new Mixed Use commercial or industrial development will require environmental
determination and if found to involve potential significant impacts, a project EIR. It is difficult to
speculate what such Mixed Use Developments might contain, but if redevelopment of existing
uses are proposed, the impacts would consider the net increases in traffic, emissions, noise,
drainage, etc. Because of proximity to Freeway 101, additional residential use along the El
Camino Real corridor is considered unlikely. In general, office, commercial or industrial
construction standards would mitigate seismic and building safety concerns, water resource
consumption would be equivalent to Industrial use but cumulative development remains a
potential significant issue. Controlled storm drainage from Mixed Use development will be similar
to alternative Industrial use, but either would increase the cumulative need for more detention
and/or retention ponds.
Traffic generation and mitigation is the single most apparent significant impact issue along this
already congested corridor. Project mitigation measures will be evaluated with individual projects
to the degree feasible, but substantial new trip generation would impact intersections and
segments already seriously deficient to LOS 'C' criteria. Even with no additional area
development, Brisco and Halcyon Roads and El Camino Real segments and intersections will
continue to experience external trip increases despite these circulation deficiencies. Overriding
considerations may be required for traffic and air quality impacts if Mixed Use development
proposed is desired.
Biological resources and cultural resources are minimal on these partially developed properties
and would be evaluated on a project basis. Few or no hazards are apparent. Noise and
aesthetics concerns will be particularly important adjoining either residential or Ocean View
Elementary School between Hillcrest Avenue and Brisco Road.
Energy and mineral resources are not at issue, nor are public services, utilities and facilities for
anticipated Mixed Uses. Some water, sewer, drainage and utility system undergrounding are part
of City Capital Improvement Program and Redevelopment Implementation Strategy. Mixed Use
is generally more aesthetically attractive than Industrial alternative but project design review
requirement will assure mitigation in any event.
A fternfivees, Evafuafions and Exphna fions:
a. Existing Office, residential, Community Facility (cemetery), commercial and industrial
areas could be classified accordingly as 0, SFR, MFR, CF, and RC and/or an Industrial or
different service commercial classification created similar to those used in the 1990 plan;
b. The entire frontage, excluding the cemetery which would be classified CF, could be
designated MU to enable mixed use including existing and potential residential or
precluding new residentiaf;
c. The industrial area could be considered for Regional Commercial with or without Specific
Plan or Planned Development combining designation, subject to circulation improvements
as part of Brisco and Halcyon Road/Freeway 101 interchange; and,
d. The Industrial area could be classified as a Specific Plan area without prescribing land
use but requiring coordination or cooperation from numerous owners prior to further
development.
The Mixed Use classification is considered environmentally superior to the 'no project' alternative
of retaining the Industrial and General Commercial classifications. MU enables existing uses to
remain or diverse Mixed Use to be considered as replacement developments. Regarding
EIR - 65 Item 9.a. - Page 270
alternative 'c', the intensity of Regional Commercial development is considered infeasible without
major freeway access and circulation improvement alternative proposed in the Brisco and
Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue Project Study Report (PSR). Similarly, requiring a Specific Plan
for several adjacent ownerships prior to further development on individual properties could be a
deterrent to Mixed Use development and phasing development or traffic mitigation would be
difficult, if feasible.
EIR - 66 Item 9.a. - Page 271
E. Relationshis Bebeen Local Short Term Uses and Enhancement of Lons Term
Productiviw
The 2001 General Plan Update continues and reinforces the 1990 General Plan policy of
Agriculture Preservation and Open Space Conservation balanced with the need for managed
community growth and development. It is recognized that potentially significant impacts are
associated with regional population growth and continued urbanization including water resources,
air quality, and transportation/circulation. The City believes that unincorporated area Residential
Rural and Suburban development alternatives in the County are far more damaging.
The 2001 General Plan Update adds an important optional element to the prior 1990 General
Plan defining policies to promote Agriculture preservation in the City and adjoining County areas
within the City's Area of Environmental Concern. The City policies establish prime agricultural
soils capability and enhancement of existing or potential long-term productivity as more
important objectives than conversion of such natural resources for local short-term urban,
suburban or rural uses.
Past development, both in the City and in unincorporated portions of its Area of Environmental
Concern, have contributed to some inefficient and incomplete development patterns including
"leapfrog" subdivisions, rural and suburban fragmentation and conflicts between agriculture and
other uses. But, continuing these patterns would clearly consume some of the richest and most
productive soils and displace or diminish important economic and environmental contributions of
Agriculture to the community and region.
Conversely, however, the continued development of alternative residential rural and suburban
areas adjoining the City to current County standards will result in irreversible environmental
changes clearly worse than those of the proposed 2001 General Plan Update. Preservation of
agricultural land in the City, for example, will be ineffective if County Ag areas are converted or
economical water resources diverted to rural and suburban uses.
Circulation system deficiency correction to achieve acceptable Levels of Service will require
Caltrans, SLOCOG and County improvements and regional transportation changes beyond the
control of the City. Without such improvements and changes, the traffic congestion and air
quality degradation will worsen, regardless of City plans and standards.
The City shares the responsibility of providing public facilities and services such as water, sewer,
fire, police, parks and recreation and planning with numerous other adjacent jurisdictions and
agencies. City facilities and services are already deficient in many areas due to prior growth and
development without adequate mitigation. The potential for mutually beneficial joint powers or
even merger of many services to provide more efficient coordinated service systems should be
continually considered within the Five Cities area. Concurrently, however, these jurisdictions
should recognize the apparent potential of Nipomo and the Mesa area becoming part of even
larger regional growth problems unless controlled by the County.
The 2001 General Plan Update proposes both changes to future urban reserve and better
Planning Area Standards for the County's Arroyo Grande Fringe Areas. Without the County's
cooperation in both Agriculture preservation and control of rural and suburban sprawl, the City's
2001 General Plan Update will be ineffective. The City must promote this long-term perspective
and spirit of governmental cooperation to properly manage population growth and development
pressures which are regional in nature. The County must be a primary partner with the City of
Arroyo Grande in the implementation of the ZOO1 General Plan Update, and other agencies'
cooperation must be focused to achieve common, beneficial development goals, such as
sustainable use within the resource and infrastructure constraints apparent in the region.
EIR - 67 Item 9.a. - Page 272
F. Effects Determined Not Sisnificant
Of the 15 topics identified in the December 7, 2000 Notice of Preparation, only two (2) were
determined "Not Significant:"
VIII) Enerqv and Mineral Resources - The 2001 Update does not differ from the adopted
1990 General plan regarding impacts on these resources and the EIR will not repeat 1990
EIR discussion; and,
X) Noise - The 2001 General Plan Update and EIR will identify areas of substantial traffic
increases that will contribute to increased noise levels, where these differ from the adopted
1990 General Plan Noise Element, if any. None of these changes are expected to involve
exposure of people to severe noise levels.
As discussed in C. General Description of Impact Topics, ten (10) of the 15 topics have been
described herein as "Potentially Significant unless Mitigated: (or 'Significant - but Mitigable': in
the 1990 final EIR). The summary Table EIR-1 identifies these as "Less than Significant"
assuming recommended mitigation:
I. Land Use and Planning
11. Population and Housing
111. Geophvsical
VII. Biolosical Resources
IX. Hazards
XI. Public Services
XII. Utility and Service Svstems
XIII. Aesthetics
XV. Recreation
The three topics found to be "Potentially Significant and Unavoidable" or possibly not capable of
mitigation to "Less than Significant" based on currently available information, are:
IV. Water Resources
V. Air Quality
VI. Transportation/Circulation
The 2001 General Plan Update appears to propose population growth and development that will
approach or exceed current water resources, air quality standards, circulation system capacities
and public service and facility capabilities. The latter impacts may be mitigated to less than
significant if the City can secure regional cooperation and growth management, particularly from
the County and other involved agencies.
The City of Arroyo Grande is already a victim of urban, suburban and rural sprawl, but, believes
that more compact urban form and revitalization of already converted and partially developed
urban areas for more intensive Mixed-Use is a more functional land use and circulation plan than
continued low density sprawl.
The focus of the City's 2001 General Plan Update is the Urban Area Land Use Element which
must be considered in context with the surrounding, mostly unincorporated County Area of
Environmental Concern. It is apparent that the short-term local benefit of more compact and
efficient urban use will be overwhelmed by degradation of long-term productivity if alternative
rural and suburban development patterns prevalent in the County continue.
EIR - 68 Item 9.a. - Page 273
Pursuant to Section 15064(a)(2) the determination of one or more significant effects shall require
the City and other responsible agencies to make findings under Section 15091 for each significant
effect and may need to make a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for
the project. These sections are cited below to indicate the possible findings:
"15091. Findinss.
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless
the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings
are:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3) Specific economic, special or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the
record.
(c) The findings in subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has
concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives."
"15093. Statement of Overridina Considerations.
(a) CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against
its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the
benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the
adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable".
(b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which
are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall
state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other
information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a
finding under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3).
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be
included in the records of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of
Determination."
EIR - 69
Item 9.a. - Page 274
6. Growth Inducins Im~acts of the Prouosed 2001 General Pfan Update
Planning for future urban growth inherently involves proposals that will foster or accelerate such
growth. Land use enhancement and intensification requires infrastructure and public service
provision that can be abused or utilized in unintended ways. Construction of additional freeway
lanes or ramps to reduce current congestion, for example, can facilitate longer trips, induce new
development and transfer congestion to different streets. Expenditures on circulation and
parking facilities can encourage more vehicle use rather than alternative transportation.
Similarly, developing supplemental water resources to stabilize Agriculture use of groundwater
can be viewed as fundamentally growth-inducing because agriculture cannot economically
compete with potential reallocation for urban uses. Major wastewater collection and treatment
facilities to improve water quality also tend to induce more construction in the service area to use
the available capacity and help pay for operations. Even the provision of improved fire
protection, law enforcement and leisure facilities are somewhat growth inducing, attracting,
continued growth and development to the areas of improvement.
In this context, it is evident that regional growth management must involve both planned
improvements and more effective land use regulation. One without the other is usually
counterproductive or "growth inducing".
H, Cumulative Effects
Section 15130 of CEQA requires that cumulative impacts shall be discussed when they are
significant. The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and
their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as much detail as is provided
for the effects attributable to the project alone.
Chapter D, of this EIR describes the 12 Land Use Study Areas that involve changes from the 1990
adopted General Plan to the proposed 2001 General Pfan Update. Base on these proposed
changes, the reasonably anticipated future projects producing cumulative impacts, including
those projects outside the control of the City are summarized on Table EIR-2.
The summary of the expected environmental effects found significant is contained in Chapter C
of this EIR, and the importance of individual changes composing the cumulative impacts can be
considered proportional to the relative capacity of the individual change compared to the total of
all alternatives combined.
The final analysis of the cumulative impact of the relevant component projects examines the
reasonable options available to the City for mitigating or avoiding any significant cumulative
effects of the proposed 2001 General Plan Update, contained as the conclusion of this Chapter G.
Table EIR-2 is an approximate summary of cumulative projects in the 12 Land Use Study Areas
involving changes from 1990 adopted to proposed 2001 General Plan Update. Although these
component projects may or may not be proposed at the individual "impact magnitude estimatedff,
the cumulative impacts would be roughly proportional to the relative size versus the total
development accommodated by the 2001 General Plan Update.
EIR - 70 Item 9.a. - Page 275
Table EIR - 2 - Land Use Study Area
Refer to Map 4
[Number / Name 1 Project I Impact Magnitude
1.
2.
3.
4.
Oak Park/James
Rancho GrandelNoyes
5.
6.
7.
Rancho GrandeILaCanada
Roval Oak Estates
8.
9,
10.
11,
12.
Adding the estimated additional dwelling units outlined reveals a range of 1350 to 1790
dwellings. Thus a potential individual project proposing 50 dwelling units would be less than 3%
to 4% of the cumulative total while a project involving 500 dwellings would represent from 30 to
40% of the total.
Composition
Church and School
SFR-LD-Planned
I I E. Village Core I Creekside times 2 1 8DU - 66 ksf I
Northern SOI/County
Highway 227 portion
Camino Mercado
N & W Village Core
I Indust.
Based on these assumptions of relative impact magnitude, it is apparent that the major potential
residential impact area involves Land Use Study Area 5, the Northern SO1 in the County,
proposed to be excluded from the City's Sphere and its potential reduced by 2 1/2 acre minimum
lot Planning Area Standard. This area alone accounts for more than 50% of the residential
impact potential.
None
35 du max
Dvt.
C/OS-5-PD
SFR-LD-PD &
E. Cherry & Myrtle
S. Traffic Way
Cherry E. of Traffic
a. FredericWALC
b, FredrickIALC
(185 ac. if annexed)
c. Williams Prop
(201 ac. if added)
Valley Road Ag.
Farroll Avenue
E. Grand Avenue
El Camino Real
1
EIR - 71
5du
20d u
c/os
County RS*
SFR-LD-PD (if
annexed)
MU-PD (10ac +/-)
Existinq SFR
280 to 700du*
60du (if annexed)
50du + 100/ksf.
Office or comml.
None
MFR-HD
SFR-LD, to MD
MU
Ag
Specific Plan
Specific Plan
Reserve*
Specific Plan
Reserve*
(if SO1 & annexed)
County
Agricultural
SFR-LM or MD-PD
Existing SFR
MU-Add to
Corridor
MU-Gateway
Parcels
MU-Add to
Corridor
MU-Former
50 du
20 to 95 du
50du + lOOksf
None
50du + 500ksf office/BP & RC
50du + lOOOksf office BP & RC
50du +/- 1000ksf (estimated @
same as ALC Phase 2)
None
25 to 45 du
None
140du + 200k
375du -I- 200k
50du + 30k
50du + lOOk
Item 9.a. - Page 276
The single-most important potential residential impact area within the City is Land Use Study
Area 11, the E. Grand Avenue Mixed Use Corridor where up to 500 new multiple family dwellings
are considered possible, representing 30 to 40% of the cumulative total. The impact of all other
Land Use Study areas combined is less than 25% of the total, with the typical individual project
of less than 50 dwellings composing less than 3 to 4% of the total.
Adding the estimated additional non-residential development outlined in Table EIR-2 reveals a
potential for or approximately 3300 ksf or 3.3 million sq ft. of office, business park, commercial
and other non-residential cumulative development. Thus a potential typical individual project
enabling 66,000 sq.ft. of office and commercial space represents 2% for the cumulative total,
(The proposed Creekside Center, on the east side of the Village, for example, proposes 33,000
sq.ft. of commercial and office space and would be 1% of total cumulative non-residential
development included in the estimate).
The significant impacts identified in this EIR include: 1V Water resources, V Air Quality and VI
Transportation/Circulation, each requiring a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to
CEQA Section 15093 and/or one of the findings of CEQA Section 15091.
Regarding Water Resources, the available City-wide water supply of 3490 ac.ft. should be
adequate for projected 2001 General Plan Update build-out population up to 20,000 provided
that average pre capita consumption does not exceed 160 gpd/person and current entitlements
and allocations are not reduced. Because proposed development is incremental and water use
can be monitored annually, the City can determine well in advance whether average per capita
use is achieved or exceeded. But because many area agencies and individuals use the
groundwater resources including Agriculture and County Residential Rural and Suburban users,
this resource may be difficult to monitor, measure and/or reallocate if overdraft is suspected.
Agriculture is the primary user and many opportun'ities for improved irrigation efficiency and
conservation could be considered before reallocation or extended overdrafting produce
permanent damage to the groundwater basin capacity. The issue is one of major regional
importance but not substantially in the control of the City. Furthermore, the no project
alternative, leaving the 1990 General Plan in effect, does not reduce the population potential of
the City nor influence the other potential users to avoid significant effects, The City's largest
single residential use potential is in the East Grand Avenue Mixed Use Corridor, which probably
will not develop the maximum of over 500 dwellings included in this cumulative estimate, nor will
multiple family development likely use as much water per capita as historic low density
development.
The County has jurisdiction over the unincorporated Arroyo Grande Fringe Area containing the
Residential Rural and Residential Suburban areas that represent more than half the estimated
cumulative water resource consumption potential and storm drainage degradation to water
quality on Meadow, Tally Ho and Arroyo Grande Creeks, upstream of the City of Arroyo Grande.
Regarding Air Quality and Circulation, the projects with the largest individual contributions to
regional traffic and therefore mobile pollution emissions are Land Use Study Area 8, the
Frederick/ALC and Williams Properties where project Specific Plans and future EIRs and multi-
agency approvals will be considered prior to proposed urban development. In the City, the next
most significant contributor to cumulative traffic and air quality impacts is the Mixed Use corridor
development of East Grand Avenue, but the alternative of retaining General Commercial pursuant
to the 1990 plan would produce equal or greater cumulative traffic and air quality impacts. The
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District strongly encourages compact, mixed use
development along transit corridors such as Grand Avenue and, along with the City, will have the
EIR - 72
Item 9.a. - Page 277
opportunity to review proposed projects to determine appropriate mitigation measures as Mixed
Use development is pursued.
While both these non-residential project areas (ALC/Williams and E, Grand Avenue) may appear
to be significant contributors to cumulative traffic and air quality generation, in a regional
perspective they are also the largest opportunities in South County to reduce trip length. By
creating major new employment areas and intercepting or preventing longer commute patterns
to San Luis Obispo or Santa Maria, these two potential projects may actually reduce the air
quality and circulation problems that continued sprawl and job/housing imbalance characteristics
of current plans imply.
In any event, it is again apparent that the County has jurisdiction over Nipomo, the Mesa and
Arroyo Grande Fringe Areas where the bulk of the Residential sprawl pattern is now emerging,
and that the City cannot control the dispersed regional development pattern. Nonetheless, the
City may control the potential for more compact urban alternatives now proposed: The City
should carefully evaluate the environmental consequences of not enabling Frederick/ALC and/or
Williams Properties expansions along the 101 corridor.
I. Other Agencies Consulted (Contact Person)
City of Pismo Beach
City of Grover Beach
County of San Luis Obispo
County Fire DepartmentICDF
Lucia Mar Unified School District
Methodist Church Camp Manager
John Wallace Associates
City Fire and Building Department
City Public Works Department
County Engineering/Transportation
City Economic Development Dept.
City Administration
City Police Department
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Luis Obispo County Air
Pollution Control District
(Scott Graham, Associate Planner)
(Ned Rogoway, Interim Planning Director)
(Warren Hoag, Senior Planner)
(Gilbert Portillo)
(Mike Sears, Deputy Superintendent)
(Steve Talent)
(Mike Nunley, Rob Miller, Craig Campbell &other staff)
(Terry Fibish, Chief)
(Don Spagnola & staff)
(Jason Gillespie, Transit Planner)
Diane Sheeley, Director)
(Steve Adams, City Manager)
Rick TerBorch, Chief)
(Howard Koln, Basin Planner)
(Robert Carr, Director)
EIR - 73 Item 9.a. - Page 278